On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 09:15:34AM +0100, Pjotr Prins wrote: > I am under the impression one should fix one package at a time. What > is the policy anyway? With or without namespace? Without the namespace > there is a naming conflict between the openssl license and the openssl > package (in tls).
We normally use the namespace as soon as there is a collision; and then I think it is okay to treat the complete file at once. If you want to be overcorrect, you could first make the namespace change in one commit and then add your package in a second one. > > I think we should rather use "slurm-wlm" if we are trying to > > dissambiguate with the "Slurm the Realtime network interface monitor". > The website https://computing.llnl.gov/linux/slurm/ suggests > otherwise. Also archlinux took this name > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/slurm-llnl/ And Debian, but we are free to use our own conventions. Do you think it is likely that we will package the other slurm? Otherwise, I would simply go with "slurm" now according to our package guidelines; and then we can still name the other slurm as slurm-nlm or similar. Andreas
