Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Nicholas Breen wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 09:03:41PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>> As Your package is the older package, and genbox is probably not one of
>>> the very often used tools, I'll rename it in Debian.
>> It sounds like that will be the least disruptive ove
Nicholas Breen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 09:03:41PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> As Your package is the older package, and genbox is probably not one of
>> the very often used tools, I'll rename it in Debian.
>
> It sounds like that will be the least disruptive overall. Thanks very
> muc
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 09:03:41PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> As Your package is the older package, and genbox is probably not one of
> the very often used tools, I'll rename it in Debian.
It sounds like that will be the least disruptive overall. Thanks very
much.
I'll be making a new upload
> However, radiance also ships a large number of files in /usr/bin, which
> I assume are scriptable too? Is renaming the command likely to cause
> equivalent problems for your users?
Exactly. About 75% of the programs were made to be run from scripts
and/or other programs to prepare materials an
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 03:17:52PM +0200, Manuel Prinz wrote:
> As a GROMACS user, I'd prefer to keep the name "genbox" since it's one
> of the tools in the GROMACS suite that is used quite often and a lot of
> my scripts would need an update to work on a name change. I think there
> are more peopl
Hi Bernd!
Am Montag, den 15.10.2007, 13:23 +0200 schrieb Bernd Zeimetz:
> I can also rename genbox to radgenbox.
> I guess your package attracts more people, so it should probably keep
> the binaries name. On the other side - if genbox is only rarely used in
> gromacs, the better thing would be to
Hi,
> I suggest:
> rename genbox to g_genbox, add a comment to gromacs' README.Debian,
>
> what's your opinion?
Ignore my last mail please.
I can also rename genbox to radgenbox.
I guess your package attracts more people, so it should probably keep
the binaries name. On the other side - if genb
Hi,
>> both gromacs and radiance ship `/usr/bin/genbox' but do neither conflict nor
>> add a diversion, thus fail to be installed in the same environment:
>>
>> > Unpacking gromacs (from .../gromacs_3.3.1-7_amd64.deb) ...
>> > dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/gromacs_3.3.1-7_amd64.
On 10/15/07, Michael Ablassmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: gromacs, radiance
> Severity: serious
> Justification: policy violation
>
> hi,
>
> both gromacs and radiance ship `/usr/bin/genbox' but do neither conflict nor
> add a diversion, thus fail to be installed in the same environmen
Package: gromacs, radiance
Severity: serious
Justification: policy violation
hi,
both gromacs and radiance ship `/usr/bin/genbox' but do neither conflict nor
add a diversion, thus fail to be installed in the same environment:
> Unpacking gromacs (from .../gromacs_3.3.1-7_amd64.deb) ...
> dpkg:
10 matches
Mail list logo