On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 02:31:37PM +0530, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: > Regarding conflicts like that between "slang-slirp" and "slirp". > (see recent bugs filed by Michael Ablassmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ).
> I feel that this a currently an area not addressed by policy > sufficiently well. Policy says that having a consistent mapping within Debian between a program name and its use takes precedence over consistency with other users outside of Debian. You may disagree with this, but that doesn't mean it's not addressed by policy. :) > Currently, the only available solution is to use "alternatives". I > know that this is not considered to be the correct use of alternatives > which is meant to address different programs providing the same > functionality. However, this is an alternative use (sorry couldn't > resist :)) of alternatives. Perhaps we could use a different > namespace like "choices" instead of "alternatives" as a way of > distinguishing the objectives. The actual mechanisms could be similar > (or even identical) to that of "alternatives". Still inconsistent with the goals of alternatives as a whole and with the policy requirement that a program name have a 1:1 mapping to a use. For my part, I've never heard of slang-slirp before, and it seems obvious to me from the naming prefix that the slirp package does have prior claim to the name. I think this just needs to be resolved by slang-slirp changing its binary name the same way as the package name. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]