On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:14:43PM -0800, Matthew Fernandez wrote: > > On Dec 10, 2019, at 17:44, Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> wrote: > > Sorry, having an executable in $PATH named "delta" is not an option at all. > > Policy §10.1. > > I am not involved in this present RFS and §10.1 is perfectly clear, but > how does this apply to some existing packages? Specifically, I’m thinking > about ninja and ninja-build. Both install a binary called ‘ninja’ albeit > to different paths.
src:ninja is no more, it got dropped after jessie. And, before then: ninja (0.1.3-3) unstable; urgency=medium * QA upload. * Set maintainer to the QA group. * Convert to dh 10, 3.0 source format. * Enable hardening. (Closes: #785152). * Rename the daemon to ninja-daemon. (Closes: #695652). -- Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> Fri, 09 Dec 2016 11:26:23 +0100 as it had no reason to name its executable "ninja" -- it was not something a human would need to type. Thus, it was reasonable to rename the existing owner to make place for an oft-invoked CLI tool. I don't know swap-cwm. Its "delta" executable is a CLI tool thus you don't have a stronger claim; on the other hand, it seems a nearly unused package, with no maintainer upload for 4.5 years despite the maintainer being otherwise active, and with a RC bug. So asking for the name might succeed, but I wouldn't hold my breath. It's much simpler to rename to, say, "gdelta", "gdiff" or something. > Is this permissible because one installs to /usr/bin and the other to > /usr/sbin? This is not spelt explicitly in the Policy, but a consensus of a bunch of random developers on IRC said "no", which I agree with. Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ A MAP07 (Dead Simple) raspberry tincture recipe: 0.5l 95% alcohol, ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ 1kg raspberries, 0.4kg sugar; put into a big jar for 1 month. ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Filter out and throw away the fruits (can dump them into a cake, ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ etc), let the drink age at least 3-6 months.
