Hi Bdale and Russ, On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:13:27PM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote: > Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > > > A conflict with openafs-client isn't really desireable, since that's a > > pretty widely installed package at sites that use AFS. Failing renaming, > > I'm inclined to split all the backup software off into a separate package > > that you can conflict with, since most people aren't using it. (That > > would be backup, butc, and fms.) > > I've got another bug report suggesting I rename the scripts to have a > tar- prefix. Doing so would obviate the need for the Conflicts. > > I knew there was a reason I'd ignored the bug requesting I package and > ship these scripts for nearly a decade... /o\
Renaming the conflicting files appart is of course largely preferable to declaring a conflict between packages. These checks are run quite frequently and I haven't seen this bug before, so it most probably was provoked by the recent upload of tar-scripts. But that doesn't mean anything about who has more rights to claim a particular path name. Cheers -Ralf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
