On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 12:00:23PM -0500, Dave Steele wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 3:54 AM Ansgar <ans...@debian.org> wrote: > > > Package: topydo > > Version: 0.13-5 > > Severity: serious > > > > Example use of `todo` from devtodo: > > > > +--- > > | Add a task, like so: > > | > > | $ todo -a I should really update my homepage > > | > > | List all open tasks: > > | > > | $ todo > > | > > | Mark a task as complete: > > | > > | $ todo -d 1.2 > > +---[ https://swapoff.org/devtodo1.html ] > > > > Example use of `topydo`: > > > > +--- > > | topydo add "Water the flowers @Home rec:1w" > > | topydo ls > > | topydo do 2 > > +---[ https://github.com/topydo/topydo ] > > > > But postinst registers topydo as an alternative for /usr/bin/todo. > > > > Debian Policy[1] requires binaries with the same name to provide the > > same functionality; given the command-line interfaces are > > incompatible, this doesn't seem to be the case here. > > > > I've reported this bug against topydo as it seems to just have taken > > over the name, but already has topydo and wouldn't need to take over > > the todo binary. > > > > Ansgar > > > > [1]: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#binaries > > I disagree. The two packages provide the same functionality - the ability > to add, remove, modify and display todo lists. Alternatives routinely offer > different option sets and commands.
/usr/bin/todo is not registered as an alternative by devtodo, so you cannot register it as an alternative in another package. The conflict between devtodo and topydo is not justified. > I would have preferred a discussion on #976402 in advance of an RC bug > report. Sorry, policy does not work that way. A policy proposal never delays a RC bug. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
