On 11/30/2016 10:32 PM, Karsten Merker wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 12:56:14AM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: >> On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 20:05 +0100, Karsten Merker wrote: >>> bcc is a package (and executable) name that is already in use for >>> another program in Debian. From https://packages.debian.org/sid/bcc: >> >> I'm aware of it. bcc is an already packaged binary package. It >> build from source package: linux86 >> >> For this package, I've tried to be close to what upstream has already named. >> So, for Debian, only the source package name is: bcc. >> The binary packages are: >> >> rrs@learner:~/rrs-home/Community/Packaging/bcc (master)$ grep Package: >> debian/control >> Package: libbcc >> Package: libbcc-dev >> Package: python-bcc >> Package: bcc-tools >> Package: bcc-lua >> 2016-12-01 / 00:52:49 ♒♒♒ ☺ >> >> Does it make sense ? >> >> If you have suggestions, please mention them, because it'll be >> easier to make the name changes now. > > many thanks for the explanation, so from a technical point of > view there is no package naming conflict, although it is somewhat > counter-intuitive to end up with a source-package "bcc" and a > binary-package "bcc" where the latter isn't built from the former > but instead contains a completely different application.
Maybe the new source package could be named bpf-bcc? That way there would be no confusion with respect to bin:bcc vs. src:bcc, and the source package name is still quite short, yet descriptive. Just a suggestion. Regards, Christian