Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --=-Nd/RUk88HuaWXBFaHHwl > Content-Type: text/plain > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 10:51 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Andres Salomon: > >=20 > > > Is there some reason you don't want to simply conflict w/ the GNU > > > Interactive Tools package? You could provide up-to-date cogito/git-cor= > e > > > packages for use while working w/ the GIT people to rename their > > > project... > >=20 > > Policy explicitly forbids this, in section 10.1. > > I don't actually care that much, in this case. It's a tradeoff between > violating policy and having a useful git package (which is quite > necessary for kernel development). It would be a temporary solution, > and we wouldn't release with it. cogito already has one RC bug, another > one won't make a difference.
I've been working (behind the scenes) with Ian Beckwith, the Debian maintainer for GNU Interactive Tools. He's got a package available (but not uploaded) which includes his upstream's name-change, so the conflict is going away. He is installing a new /usr/bin/git which is a little script informing his users of the name change. He wants to use alternatives (in violation of 10.1) so that I can alternative our /usr/bin/gt to /usr/bin/git, and I'm inclined to agree. In time, as his users learn to type gitfm instead of git, his /usr/bin/git reminder script will go away and I can get rid of the rename patch. -- Sebastian Kuzminsky -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
