On 04.06.2024 17:29, Stephen Gelman wrote:
On May 29, 2024 at 4:04:13 PM, Bastian Germann <b...@debian.org
<mailto:b...@debian.org>> wrote:
Hi,
I suggest fq renames the binary because it was introduced over 4 years
later and has only been in one release so far.
Both packages have very low usage acc to popcon, but for fq the fq
binary is the entire point of the package, whereas for nq, the fq binary
seems to only be a small part of the functionality of the package.
Therefore, I think that nq should rename the fq binary.
With that argument I could also upload another new package called tq,
which contains only the binary /usr/bin/tq (+ man page) and argue that
it has the right keep that name b/c it is the only binary in it. ;-)
I rather follow the argumentation of Bastian: new packages should better
care if they introduce file conflicts w/ existing packages, especially
if the names of the programs are rather short.
I had a look if there are packages, which needs nq or fq for building,
i.e. if renaming could cause FTBFS bugs: currently there are none for
both. So, we only will generate frustrated end users.
Hilmar
--
sigfault
