Preuße, Hilmar wrote... > On 03.05.2024 22:29, Christoph Biedl wrote: > > Hilmar Preusse wrote...
> > > * Bump Standards and dh compat version, no changes needed.
> >
> > I'm a little surprised why you would change that in a NMU.
> >
> Well, this was reported by lintian. As they were no further changes needed,
> I though it would be a good idea.
Likely there are different opinions here - I prefer to make changes in an NMU
as small as possible. And was about to break my own rule by suggesting
an autopkgtest in #1038937.
> > > * Add "Conflicts: fq".
> >
> > We have a problem. Conflicts: is not enough, with both nq and fq
> > providing /usr/bin/fq, they are in violation of policy 10.1:
> >
> > | Two different packages must not install programs with different
> > | functionality but with the same filenames.
> >
>
> Thanks for pointing this out. The solution in the pull request (which
> introduced the Conflict) looked weird, but in the end #1005961 was solved
> the same (wrong) way, hence I thought it would be OK.
Yeah, to be honest, earlier I had assumed Conflicts: was sufficient to
deal with such a file name clash, too. Only to learn it the hard way in
#919697 policy is pretty straight in that regard.
And I'm not sure policy is the best way to handle this but changing it
is a different story.
> As I'm not the maintainer of either of these package I don't really feel
> responsible to solve the conflict. At first I'd reopen the bug above and
> state it as wrongly solved quoting the policy entry.
That would be necessary - although I don't know how to solve this in a
sensible way.
Sorry for disturbing your best intentions to bring nq back in shape -
but this problem will not disappear by ignoring it.
Christoph
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
