Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) Leave things alone, and ignore the problem. This, it seems to me, > requires some kind of go-ahead from the release team. > > 2) Drop aleph. This would be warranted if it were of no use any longer, > or if it were buggy. But the *only* bug against Aleph is the name clash > with TeX, so there is no independent reason to prefer this solution. > The question remains, however, whether the current version has any use, > and I simply don't know the answer to that. If it does, then, as I > said, I'm happy to maintain it.
I don't know an answer, either - but popcon gives some hints: 18170 aleph-emacs 23 0 0 0 23 (Debian Qa Group) 21858 aleph-doc 12 0 0 0 12 (Debian Qa Group) 30097 aleph 3 1 2 0 0 (Debian Qa Group) 37868 aleph-dev 1 0 1 0 0 (Debian Qa Group) the 30000's are the area of the "not in sid" packages, in other words leftovers that have never been upgraded or removed. That's not a strong argument to keep it... > 3) Retain aleph, and change the name of the binary in one package or the > other. If we don't do (2), and the release team is not happy with (1), > then this is obviously the right course. I don't care at all which > program's name is changed or what it's changed to. What are the pros > and cons? I'm against changing TeX's aleph. It would be against the upstream decision. And knowing the information Paul gave, I suggest not to rename to afnix, but to something like aleph-runtime or similar. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)