On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:56:44AM +0900, Charles Plessy
wrote:
The reason I ask is that in the past, even before EMBOSS
was packaged, some people accepted to rename their binary
so that the one of EMBOSS was left unchanged (many
thanks).
So this has happened before and could happen in the
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Jon Dowland wrote:
I suggest it is also a good idea to try and convince the
EMBOSS upstream to try and avoid using binary names that
are already in use in the wild.
Well, to be more precise it is better to try to convince
them to not use such generic names. It might be to
Le Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 04:41:17PM +0100, Jon Dowland a écrit :
Renaming a binary is a diversion from upstream, which we
want to minimize, in almost all cases. So, it seems that the
best approach is to contain the damage to the emboss
package.
Hi,
In summary, here is what I will do.
- For
Dear debian-devel,
I am maintaining a package that shares binary names with three others,
cons, hsffig and pscan. I contacted their developpers in private,
via debian-devel, and then through the BTS. I got an answer from the
maintainer of cons, but the maintainers of hsffig and pscan, although
Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear debian-devel,
I am maintaining a package that shares binary names with three others,
cons, hsffig and pscan. I contacted their developpers in private,
via debian-devel, and then through the BTS. I got an answer from the
maintainer of cons, but the maintainers of
Le Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:13:45PM +0200, Luk Claes a écrit :
Now to the core:
A package cons that ships /usr/bin/cons and a package pscan that ships
/usr/bin/pscan makes sense and these binaries and project names exist for a
long time. Why do you think a rename of the files /usr/bin/cons
On Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 18:43:36 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I would like to know if it is OK that I orphan pscan and open a
discussion about its removal.
I think it would be grossly rude to attempt to orphan a package
which you do not maintain which has no bugs against it. (Except
the
Charles Plessy wrote:
I would like to know if it is OK that I orphan pscan and open a
discussion about its removal.
This is a pretty rude thing to do. It is not because a package does
have conflicting files with yours that you should remove it. Few ideas:
* simply use Conflict: pscan
*
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 04:15:40PM +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
Charles Plessy wrote:
I would like to know if it is OK that I orphan pscan and open a
discussion about its removal.
This is a pretty rude thing to do. It is not because a package does
have conflicting files with yours that
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 02:40:09PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
On Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 18:43:36 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I would like to know if it is OK that I orphan pscan and open a
discussion about its removal.
I think it would be grossly rude to attempt to orphan a package
which
Le Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 07:25:11PM +0200, Uwe Hermann a écrit :
Ack. Sorry for not answering earlier, but as the current maintainer of
pscan I have no intentions to orphan or remove it.
Dear Uwe,
Thanks for the answer to the ping.
What do we do for the binary conflict ?
The reason I ask is
Le Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 04:15:40PM +0200, Vincent Fourmond a écrit :
This is a pretty rude thing to do. It is not because a package does
have conflicting files with yours that you should remove it. Few ideas:
* simply use Conflict: pscan
Hi all,
I am a bit shocked that so many think
12 matches
Mail list logo
