On 11/15/2011 01:48 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Alex Pennace wrote: > >> Even without that point, the conclusion remains the same: Both >> projects should endure the rename (unless one concedes), and that >> shouldn't be viewed in terms of "look at what those meanies in Debian >> are making us do" but instead regarded as a natural outcome of the >> choices each project made at various times. > > I personally wonder if we should change our policy instead of forcing > these two upstream communities into conflict.
I think we should for these cases where it is obvious that one software exists for a much longer time than the other. We should not force old projects to rename themselves just because the developers of a new project did not investigate if they use an existing name. Checking filenames of the largest distributions is not hard. -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprints: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ec3fc3a.5040...@bzed.de