> On Dec 10, 2019, at 17:44, Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 08:30:44PM -0500, Dan Davison wrote: >> On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 at 22:31, Paul Wise <p...@debian.org> wrote: >>> On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 9:36 PM Dan Davison wrote: >>> >>>> Currently (FreeBSD, Rust Cargo, Arch Linux, Homebrew) the package name >>> is "git-delta", which installs an executable named "delta". Can it do the >>> same for Debian? >>> >>> There is one package already using that executable name: >>> >>> $ apt-file search bin/delta >>> swap-cwm: /usr/bin/delta > >> You might be right that my naming was suboptimal! Indeed, even the >> git-prefixed package name isn't great because the syntax highlighter works >> for unified diff in addition to git output. However, I'm not sure I'm ready >> to make this breaking change for the existing users yet. Is it an option to >> distribute it for now with the same name as it is currently distributed >> under in ArchLinux, Homebrew, FreeBSD, Windows and Rust Cargo? I.e. >> package: "git-delta" >> executable: "delta" > >> Specifically, are either of the following options? >> >> 1. Package "git-delta" installing executable "delta" (install fail/denied >> if user has the other package installed) >> 2. Package "git-delta" installing executables "delta" and alias "git-delta" >> (only the alias installed if "delta" exists?) > > Sorry, having an executable in $PATH named "delta" is not an option at all. > Policy §10.1.
I am not involved in this present RFS and §10.1 is perfectly clear, but how does this apply to some existing packages? Specifically, I’m thinking about ninja and ninja-build. Both install a binary called ‘ninja’ albeit to different paths. Is this permissible because one installs to /usr/bin and the other to /usr/sbin?