On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Joerg Jaspert <jo...@debian.org> wrote: > On 13249 March 1977, Per Andersson wrote: > >>> There's a more popular/more complicated piece of software called Foreman[1], >>> for which there's an RFP already[2], as well as a component of that, >>> foremancli, already in Debian. Upstream provides a package too, although you >>> could argue it isn't our problem if there's a naming conflict. >> I saw this but decided to ignore it for now since there hasn't been any >> activity >> with Foreman in over a year. If the name conflict arise in Debian it is a >> pretty >> small matter to change it then I think. I.e. Foreman[1] renaming to >> theforeman as >> the upstream web page or this foreman renaming to ruby-foreman or some such, >> it is not a big thing IMHO. > > In Debian its actually a pretty big matter. The more so the longer the > wrongly named package exists in Debian. So it is *much* preferred to not > have it at all, if the conflict is known from the beginning.
I came to the same conclusion myself. I asked ftpmasters to reject the uploaded foreman from NEW, which they did. Package is since renamed to ruby-foreman (as can be seen in the bug title), although not uploaded yet. Best, Per -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cabyrxstsenvvuxvi0dl5rm4j82zzla0d8exrm_k7ohrjqxb...@mail.gmail.com
