El jue, 22-05-2025 a las 11:48 +0200, Claudia Pellegrino escribió: > Hi Óscar, > > > > Am I wrong, should it be called `ms-edit` or `microsoft-edit`? And > if > > so, is it also logical to rename the executable to `ms-edit` or > > `msedit`? > > According [..] is a good thing. > > With that out of the way, your package is a duplicate of both > microsoft-edit [3] and ms-edit [4]. Both were uploaded before yours > was. > Duplicate packages are not allowed, so I figure that all things > considered, the deletion and merge requests are justified.
In this I agree and I recognize that it was 100% my fault. When I searched the AUR for the package I don't know why but I only saw the `- git` version and not the normal one. In this case I am in favor of merging the packages as long as the `edit` name is kept (whether or not I remain as co-maintainer of the package is best decided by the administrators, I volunteer). > Another argument that speaks in favor of the existing packages (and > against yours) is that your package causes a clash with > `/usr/bin/edit`, > a binary that the `vi` package provides. The relative usage of `vi` > is > ~ 47% [5], which is high enough to be an issue in practice. > The two existing packages already took care of renaming their > binaries > to match the package name. With this point I do not agree very much, I think it is better to mark that it has conflicts with `vi` (I have put it now, the truth is that I had not realized it) than to put another name to the binary and to the package. > Greetings. -- Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
