Carsten Hey wrote: > * Patrick Ouellette [2012-05-04 13:38 -0400]: >> If you read the entire section 7.4 is seems entirely reasonable to >> create a package with an executable name that already exists in Debian >> with a package conflicts tag if the two executables have different >> functionality. > > But I want to play the boulder dash clone epiphany whilst browsing the > web using the epiphany browser!
This misses the point. The goal of policy ยง10.1 is that other packages (in Debian and elsewhere) can rely on a command name having a single, reliable meaning, independent of the $PATH setting and installed package set. For example, it would be awfully strange if xdg-open or sensible-browser caused the boulder dash clone epiphany to open. If other packages use the "node" command to refer to Node.js, then the Conflicts or Breaks being prevented would be by node against all of those packages and by nodejs against packages that use "node" to refer to LinuxNode. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120504223505.GA13748@burratino
