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
Bug#984802: conflicts: lcdf-typetools
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? 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). Samuel
Bug#984802: conflicts: lcdf-typetools
Package: otf-trace Version: 1.12.5+dfsg-7 Severity: serious Justification: Sounds like a serious violation of ?10.1 -- System Information: Debian Release: bullseye/sid APT prefers focal-updates APT policy: (500, 'focal-updates'), (500, 'focal-security'), (500, 'focal') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 5.4.0-66-generic (SMP w/32 CPU cores) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE, TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages otf-trace depends on: ii libc6 2.31-0ubuntu9.2 ii libgcc-s1 10.2.0-5ubuntu1~20.04 pn libopen-trace-format1 ii libopenmpi34.0.3-0ubuntu1 pn libotfaux0 ii libstdc++6 10.2.0-5ubuntu1~20.04 ii zlib1g 1:1.2.11.dfsg-2ubuntu1.2 otf-trace recommends no packages. Versions of packages otf-trace suggests: ii texlive-latex-base 2019.20200218-1
