Josselin Mouette <j...@debian.org> writes: > Le mardi 08 juillet 2014 à 11:31 -0400, Eric Cooper a écrit :
>> Since Debian package names must already be unique, we ought to be able >> to leverage that to avoid having to fight over which package gets to >> claim which binary name. >> >> What about making it into a user's install-time decision, >> rather than a developer's packaging-time decision? > It sounds silly because the behavior becomes non-predictable. > The correct solution is Solomon’s judgment: whenever such name clashes > occur, force *both* packages to rename the binary, and have all reverse > dependencies in Debian use the renamed path. I do think this is context-dependent. Some programs are so widely and heavily used outside of Debian that people familiar with Linux expect them to be available with a particular name. In cases like that, I don't think renaming the commonly-used program makes sense. I understand the appeal of strict fairness, and that by not renaming we're letting upstream "get away" with camping on namespace, but I think the disservice to our users outweighs the somewhat dubious benefits of having that fight. That doesn't apply in this particular case, but I think that point was relevant to both git and node. (I made this argument at the time, with respect to node, in the TC, so this is probably not a new viewpoint to folks.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8761j73gmb....@windlord.stanford.edu
