On Sun, 2024-10-06 at 17:45 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > On 2024-10-06 Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> wrote: > [...] > > I agree in principle, but I wonder if going through the effort of > > introducing a new source package 'signify-mail' and removing the current > > 'signify' will give us anything beyond doing the QA package upload to > > rename the binary package. > > > The only advantage I can identify seems to be if the 'signify-openbsd' > > source package would then be able to be renamed to 'signify'. But is > > that possible? Are there any earlier examples of re-use of the same > > source package name, but for a different package? The linux-2.6 vs > > linux analogy is not identical, it is the same source package and there > > were no source package namespace re-use happening. > [...] > Hello Simon, > > Afaiu Ben gave the rationale in his initial mail: > > Yes, I think you should also rename the source package signify > > > > Debbugs doesn't always properly distinguish source and binary package > > names. This goes badly when there are a source and binary package of > > the same name, but the binary package is built by a different source > > package. > > If you do not rename signify(src) to signify-mail(src) the bts might mix > up bugs against signify(bin) from signify-openbsd(src) with bugs against > the source package signify. > > Renaming signify-openbsd(src) to signify(src) was *not* suggested.
I think it's reasonable to do that too, though it is less important. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If more than one person is responsible for a bug, no one is at fault.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
