On Mo, 2008-01-14 at 14:39 +0100, Soren Hansen wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:15:41PM +0900, Emmet Hikory wrote: > > I don't have a strong opinion about which is the right falcon, but > > such a Conflicts: would be wrong. Section 10.1 of the Debian Policy > > Manual (1) clearly states, in part: > > I think this process makes sense. > > IMO, the programming language should allowed to be /usr/bin/falcon. > Changing the name of the interpreter will mean that any program that is > supposed to be interpreted by falcon will need to be patched. OTOH, > renaming the binary in Dennis' repository management thing has very > limited consequences. >
Well, as I understand this falcon language is not even uploaded to the archive, so there can't be any other package which is depending on #!/usr/bin/falcon, or did I miss something? Emmets statement about the way of doing this, is imho the right way, and it comes to the same result to what I said earlier. Regards, \sh -- SysAdmin, OSS Developer GPG-Key ID: 0xC098EFA8 Fingerprint: 3D8B 5138 0852 DA7A B83F DCCB C189 E733 C098 EFA8 http://www.sourcecode.de/ -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
