On 2019-02-06 21:15:38 +0000 (+0000), Ian Jackson wrote: [...] > reusing a source package name is IMO almost never (maybe never at > all) the right idea. [...]
To take an example, I maintain the weather-util packages in main. The weather-util binary package provides a /usr/bin/weather executable because upstream calls the project "weather" but a release or so before I packaged it there was a game in non-free with a source package named weather which had been orphaned and subsequently removed. Rather than deal with the confusion I opted to just call my source package weather-util and named its main binary package the same, even though I could technically per policy have used weather for one or both of them (the previous weather source package didn't even create a binary package of the same name, if memory serves, so no transitional period would have been required). More than a dozen years have passed, and this choice really hasn't presented a problem whatsoever. -- Jeremy Stanley
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
