Hi there, On Monday 03 January 2011 21:48:45 Josip Rodin wrote: > > The problem is in scotch, that changed all the binary names from > > scotch_$binary to just $binary (see [1]). > > > > The "gbase" in scotch is completely different than the one from the gbase > > package. My first idea would be to just revert the gbase name change on > > scotch, but looking at gbase on debian... It hasn't been updated, > > upstream didn't release anything since 2007 and is now 404'd. No package > > depends on it. Popcon shows[2] only 74 people having it. > > > > Shouldn't we just drom gbase from Debian, and add a Conflicts just to > > make sure machines where gbase is already installed don't suffer from > > this? > > > > [1] > > http://git.debian.org/?p=debian-science/packages/scotch.git;a=commitdiff; > >h=00d7dad1884e5db6bd6995cb9e5c21c76c989705 [2] > > http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=gbase > > I'm not impressed with this kind of a reasoning, when > http://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=scotch indicates an > analogous number of users (109). > > Frankly, I think it's pretty rude of you to show such blatant disrespect > for the existing gbase user base, no matter what its size.
I am sorry - I sure didn't meant to be rude or disrespectful. My reasoning was related to the fact gbase's upstream is dead, but you're right - there's no reason why Debian shouldn't keep with both packages... That said, a fix to this should go to scoth then (and untag this bug from gbase), and should be something as easy as re-renaming this particular binary and manpage. -- Marcos Marado -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
