Bug#984802: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#984802: conflicts: lcdf-typetools
Quoting Samuel Thibault (2021-03-08 18:00:31) > Jonas Smedegaard, le lun. 08 mars 2021 17:36:53 +0100, a ecrit: > > Quoting Samuel Thibault (2021-03-08 16:12:37) > > > Gürkan Myczko, le lun. 08 mars 2021 15:44:52 +0100, a ecrit: > > > > Package: otf-trace > > > > Version: 1.12.5+dfsg-7 > > > > Severity: serious > > > > Justification: Sounds like a serious violation of ?10.1 > > > > > > Well, yes. The base issue is that OTF stands both for OpenType > > > Font and Open Trace Format. Thus the marked "Conflicts". > > > > > > The question is who should "own" the otfinfo command name? > > > > Do you mean if the package already owning it is ok giving it up? > > No, I rather mean that in name spaces it's hard to define a notion of > "owning" a name. The two meanings of "OTF" have sprinkled > independently, one can try to look at history to check "who came > first", but that's rather meaningless. > > > > Packages names are not really a concern, I was fine with using > > > libopen-trace-format-dev along the existing libotf-dev. > > > > > > But command names are really a concern since that's what > > > documentations, tutorials, etc. found on internet will say: "run > > > otfinfo", and making Debian systems deviate from that will confuse > > > users, be it for one side or the other side. > > > > > > (and the probability that somebody works both on OpenType Font and > > > Open Trace Format on the same machine is quite low). > > > > I thought similarly about a clash between a JavaScript interpreter > > and a ham routing daemon, but turned out the rules are quite strict: > > See bug#681360 about node. > > And yet it has been so for 9 years without anybody complaining. Ohhh, now I get the point :-) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#984802: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#984802: conflicts: lcdf-typetools
Jonas Smedegaard, le lun. 08 mars 2021 17:36:53 +0100, a ecrit: > Quoting Samuel Thibault (2021-03-08 16:12:37) > > Gürkan Myczko, le lun. 08 mars 2021 15:44:52 +0100, a ecrit: > > > Package: otf-trace > > > Version: 1.12.5+dfsg-7 > > > Severity: serious > > > Justification: Sounds like a serious violation of ?10.1 > > > > Well, yes. The base issue is that OTF stands both for OpenType Font > > and Open Trace Format. Thus the marked "Conflicts". > > > > The question is who should "own" the otfinfo command name? > > Do you mean if the package already owning it is ok giving it up? No, I rather mean that in name spaces it's hard to define a notion of "owning" a name. The two meanings of "OTF" have sprinkled independently, one can try to look at history to check "who came first", but that's rather meaningless. > > Packages names are not really a concern, I was fine with using > > libopen-trace-format-dev along the existing libotf-dev. > > > > But command names are really a concern since that's what > > documentations, tutorials, etc. found on internet will say: "run > > otfinfo", and making Debian systems deviate from that will confuse > > users, be it for one side or the other side. > > > > (and the probability that somebody works both on OpenType Font and > > Open Trace Format on the same machine is quite low). > > I thought similarly about a clash between a JavaScript interpreter and a > ham routing daemon, but turned out the rules are quite strict: See > bug#681360 about node. And yet it has been so for 9 years without anybody complaining. Samuel
Bug#984802: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#984802: conflicts: lcdf-typetools
Quoting Samuel Thibault (2021-03-08 16:12:37) > Gürkan Myczko, le lun. 08 mars 2021 15:44:52 +0100, a ecrit: > > Package: otf-trace > > Version: 1.12.5+dfsg-7 > > Severity: serious > > Justification: Sounds like a serious violation of ?10.1 > > Well, yes. The base issue is that OTF stands both for OpenType Font > and Open Trace Format. Thus the marked "Conflicts". > > The question is who should "own" the otfinfo command name? Do you mean if the package already owning it is ok giving it up? > Packages names are not really a concern, I was fine with using > libopen-trace-format-dev along the existing libotf-dev. > > But command names are really a concern since that's what > documentations, tutorials, etc. found on internet will say: "run > otfinfo", and making Debian systems deviate from that will confuse > users, be it for one side or the other side. > > (and the probability that somebody works both on OpenType Font and > Open Trace Format on the same machine is quite low). I thought similarly about a clash between a JavaScript interpreter and a ham routing daemon, but turned out the rules are quite strict: See bug#681360 about node. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
