Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > Scott Kitterman wrote: > > >> My suggestion is to call your package falconpl as you've said you would and >> then conflict against falcon. After that, we can let the market decide. If >> one of these packages gets popular enough to cause the other difficulty with >> the conflicts, then the less popular one will move their file in /usr/bin. >> > > I second that. I seems to me that Giancarlo has not understood what several > people have already attempted to explain on IRC, and that Scott also writes > above. Thus, let me try again to make it clear: > > It is required that there is no package name clash, and by choosing > falconpl as the package name, that has been achieved. > > The remaining problem is the clash of binary names. Dpkg has a way of > dealing with that, and that is the Conflicts: tag in debian/control. > To be clear: I second this decision TOO. I have actually already DONE IT. I was going to *upload* it, when a second negative advocating was posted, right in the middle of the chat session where other MOTUs (i.e. ScottK) were resolving for this solution: ---------------------
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivery-date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:55:44 -0800 From: =?utf-8?q?Nafallo_Bj=C3=A4levik?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Generated-By: Launchpad (canonical.com) .... This package source and binary needs to be renamed. We already have falcon. Please make sure they are co-installable. --------------------- As I received this notify, I understood there was the need of bringing up the topic to find a solution, as just "renaming the binary" is a bit cryptic, and the conversation on the chat was going on like "change the name of /usr/bin/falcon, and DON'T even try to use Conflict!" . I don't say this is unacceptable, but I wanted that to be discussed, and to be discussed considering the alternative you just said. So, mor0, it was not me not having understood what you're saying here. As my position about falconpl/Conflict is anyhow clearly left open in my first mail, (in which I am just asking for an open discussion, and state 10 points why changing the /usr/bin/falcon program name would be problematic) it seems it has not be fully read; I understand, there was much material in that. > I see no point of making a big fuzz about this rather trivial problem. Put > a Conflicts: tag in control, and Bob's your uncle. > That was the point. I raised the fuzz, technically, because the decision was too controversial, and there was the need for an open discussion, and morally because there was NO NEED to just sneak in then other package. We had already half an agreement to go like that; some open discussion in the channel would have just resolved the question. What I want to know is just if it is correct, under the CoC terms, to just unilaterally do things and then ask others to conforms, even when an open and cooperative mood has been shown on the other side. As if it is so, I am missing the whole point of "ubuntu", which is very important to me. Bests, Giancarlo Niccolai. -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
