Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#441200: libconfig name clash"): > I can't see any record of anyone suggesting [libconfig1] though, and > I'd really hope that it wouldn't be accepted at NEW.
See #438683 where otherwise sensible people are suggesting using the name libconfig1 for the new library due to the TC's inactivity. > Abraham, Julien, do you have sensible alternative names for your packages > (eg, incorporating the existing libconfig into the libabz package, > or renaming the new libconfig package to libconfig-hyperrealm)? If so, > what are they? I think we need to decide this issue without allowing ourselves to be diverted into protracted negotiations with the maintainers. > > One option would be for the TC to explicitly ask the ftpmasters to be > > especially fussy with the replacement names. For example: > > N. The Committee asks the ftpmasters, when they process the > > resulting packages from either maintainer through NEW, to ensure > > that the new names are clear, descriptive, and unlikely to cause > > further clashes. > > I would have thought this was already the case for _all_ packages, and > that libdebug and libconfig being accepted in the first place under those > names was a mistake. It's a bit long ago to really review now though. Yes, it is too late to go back and understand how this mistake was made. I just want to make sure that the problem actually gets solved - ie, that the same mistake is not made again. Since we know that this mistake can be made, I think we should take steps which are likely to prevent it. Can I persuade you about that clause ? > > > (4) The proposed libconfig should be called libconfig-hyperrealm or > > > similar to distinguish it from other libconfigs. > > I agree with this. How do you think we should word this part of our > > decision to make it clear what we mean ? See above. > > If we have to choose a name (and can't rely on NEW processing or the > maintainers to work how they're supposed to), I'm inclined to think we > should just pick some ourselves. I would be happy with us simply issuing advice to the ftpmasters for their NEW processing. Would you be happy with such a clause ? I see that you think it's unnecessary but the art of politics is compromise. If you don't think it's harmful and I think it's necessary, are you willing to see it included ? Picking names ourselves is going to make us deeply unpopular (rightly so IMO) and get us well bogged down in bikeshedding. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]