On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 2:29 AM Sylvestre Ledru <sylves...@debian.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > Le 08/09/2018 à 18:39, Sean Whitton a écrit : > > Hello, > > > > On Fri 07 Sep 2018 at 10:10PM +0200, Ruben Undheim wrote: > > > >> However, I think the policy gives us a lot of freedom to choose (it is not > >> very > >> strict in this case). > > > > I don't understand. This seems pretty strict: > > > > Two different packages must not install programs with different > > functionality but with the same filenames. > > > I think the policy should be changed. > It was possible to accommodate that when the archive was a few thousand > packages. > Now that it is much bigger, that floss are everywhere, packages are being > forked,
This is indeed annoy nowadays. And on the other hand, many software authors don't take serious on naming, just picking some common words. But I see it's problem in FHS, which has one namespace for binary. > we might want to update the policy to give more flexibility. > For example, in the Rust team, we have been discussing about packaging fd (a > find alternative developed using rust [1]). > We are planning to install it in /usr/bin/fd .. but this conflicts with > something completely different, fdclone a clone > of fd, a MS-DOS file browser... > While this is probably fun, with a declining popcon (104 today), and no > upstream release since 2013, It's not true, at least I find the latest release is last month[1] [1] http://www.unixusers.net/ml/FDclone-users/201808/msg00000.html (in Japanese) -- Shengjing Zhu
