On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 01:14:10PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Steffen Möller writes ("Re: Updating the policy for conflicting binaries
> names ? [was: Re: Re: New package netgen-lvs with binary /usr/bin/netgen -
> already taken]"):
> > If someone
> > happens to be in two such communities then
Steffen Möller writes ("Re: Updating the policy for conflicting binaries names
? [was: Re: Re: New package netgen-lvs with binary /usr/bin/netgen - already
taken]"):
> If someone
> happens to be in two such communities then Debian makes it easy enough
> for everyone to just install a package
Hello,
On 09.09.18 02:11, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Paride Legovini writes:
>
>> However, there are clearly cases where renaming binaries makes several
>> people unhappy (most likely: the package maintainers, upstream, people
>> writing scripts, users of different distributions), while not making a
Philip Hands writes:
> Paride Legovini writes:
>
>> Adam Borowski wrote on 14/09/2018:
>>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:28:36PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> For example, in the Rust team, we have been discussing about packaging
> fd (a find alternative developed using rust [1]). We are
Hello,
On Fri 14 Sep 2018 at 07:13PM +0200, Paride Legovini wrote:
> and provide the convenience symlinks:
>
> /usr/bin/fdfind -> /usr/share/fd-find/bin/fd
> /usr/share/man/man1/fdfind.1.gz -> /usr/share/fd-find/man/man1/fd.1.gz
>
> Does this sound reasonable?
Assuming this is a arch-dependent
Paride Legovini writes:
> Adam Borowski wrote on 14/09/2018:
>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:28:36PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
For example, in the Rust team, we have been discussing about packaging
fd (a find alternative developed using rust [1]). We are planning to
install it
Adam Borowski wrote on 14/09/2018:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:28:36PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> For example, in the Rust team, we have been discussing about packaging
>>> fd (a find alternative developed using rust [1]). We are planning to
>>> install it in /usr/bin/fd .. but this
Ian Jackson writes:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
> > I thought this would would have been less offensive than the normal
> > "This is a lie."
>
> You should never accuse someone of lying unless you are sure that they
> know that what they are saying is wrong.
For Adrian (since you acknowledged
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:28:36PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > For example, in the Rust team, we have been discussing about packaging
> > fd (a find alternative developed using rust [1]). We are planning to
> > install it in /usr/bin/fd .. but this conflicts with something
> > completely
On 09/08/2018 08:18 PM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 08/09/2018 à 18:39, Sean Whitton a écrit :
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Fri 07 Sep 2018 at 10:10PM +0200, Ruben Undheim wrote:
>>
>>> However, I think the policy gives us a lot of freedom to choose (it is not
>>> very
>>> strict in this case).
On Wed, 2018-09-12 at 22:34 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 08, 2018 at 08:18:10PM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > ...
> > For example, in the Rust team, we have been discussing about
> > packaging fd (a find alternative developed using rust [1]).
> > We are planning to install it in
Adrian Bunk writes:
> I thought this would would have been less offensive than the normal
> "This is a lie." when a statement is the exact opposite of the
> truth (compare [1] with the claim "no upstream release since 2013"),
> but as non-native speaker I accept your explanation that I was
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:31:40AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 09:18:13PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > Dear Adrian,
>
> Dear Chris,
>
> > > This is fake news.
> >
> > Please try and avoid casual use of this term on Debian lists.
> >
> > Whilst I understand your meaning
Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Updating the policy for conflicting binaries names ?
[was: Re: Re: New package netgen-lvs with binary /usr/bin/netgen - already
taken]"):
> I thought this would would have been less offensive than the normal
> "This is a lie."
You should never accuse someone of lying
Le 12/09/2018 à 23:31, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 09:18:13PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
>> Dear Adrian,
> Dear Chris,
>
>>> This is fake news.
>> Please try and avoid casual use of this term on Debian lists.
>>
>> Whilst I understand your meaning and intentions, the term has
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 09:18:13PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Dear Adrian,
Dear Chris,
> > This is fake news.
>
> Please try and avoid casual use of this term on Debian lists.
>
> Whilst I understand your meaning and intentions, the term has now been
> so overused and overapplied and has been
Dear Adrian,
> This is fake news.
Please try and avoid casual use of this term on Debian lists.
Whilst I understand your meaning and intentions, the term has now been
so overused and overapplied and has been evacuated of all useful
meaning.
Indeed, its use now appears to only distract &
On Sat, Sep 08, 2018 at 08:18:10PM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>...
> For example, in the Rust team, we have been discussing about packaging fd (a
> find alternative developed using rust [1]).
> We are planning to install it in /usr/bin/fd .. but this conflicts with
> something completely
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Yes. Is "environment-modules" well-known these days? I'm surprised not
> to see it mentioned more often.
Indeed, environment-modules and direnv and excellent tools for this sort of
game.
--
Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net
Quoting Jonathan Dowland (2018-09-11 15:27:00)
> On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 11:36:01PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> >There were no users of the ax25's node binary (and almost no users
> >for the package, as demonstrated later). The inconvenience was
> >shifted entirely on the users of the nodejs
On Sat, Sep 08, 2018 at 05:11:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I kind of like the solution of putting the binaries in a different
directory. This is also a little irritating, since users have to add an
additional directory to their PATH, but they only have to do that once and
it works
On 09/09/2018 03:46 AM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sat, 2018-09-08 at 20:18:10 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>> Le 08/09/2018 à 18:39, Sean Whitton a écrit :
>>> On Fri 07 Sep 2018 at 10:10PM +0200, Ruben Undheim wrote:
However, I think the policy gives us a lot of freedom to choose
On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 11:36:01PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
There were no users of the ax25's node binary (and almost no users for
the package, as demonstrated later). The inconvenience was shifted
entirely on the users of the nodejs package. Our motto is to care about
our users, not to
On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 09:32:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Paride Legovini writes ("Re: Updating the policy for conflicting binaries
> names ? [was: Re: Re: New package netgen-lvs with binary /usr/bin/netgen -
> already taken]"):
> > It would certainly work, but as you say it is still
On September 9, 2018 9:36:01 PM UTC, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>❦ 9 septembre 2018 21:53 +0100, Ian Jackson
>:
>
>>> The current policy maximizes discomfort for all parts involved in
>the
>>> name of creating equality where it does not actually exist, and this
>
>>> does not help anybody.
>>
>>
❦ 9 septembre 2018 21:53 +0100, Ian Jackson :
>> The current policy maximizes discomfort for all parts involved in the
>> name of creating equality where it does not actually exist, and this
>> does not help anybody.
>
> I think it did create equality in that the inconvenience for each
>
Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: Updating the policy for conflicting binaries names ?
[was: Re: Re: New package netgen-lvs with binary /usr/bin/netgen - already
taken]"):
> On Sep 08, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > The current policy protects maintainers and users of less popular
> > packages from feeling
Paride Legovini writes ("Re: Updating the policy for conflicting binaries names
? [was: Re: Re: New package netgen-lvs with binary /usr/bin/netgen - already
taken]"):
> It would certainly work, but as you say it is still irritating. I like
> the idea of putting the binaries in a different
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Updating the policy for conflicting binaries names ?
[was: Re: Re: New package netgen-lvs with binary /usr/bin/netgen - already
taken]"):
> The current policy means that the discussion about which package should
> use the name begins on neutral ground, without prejudice
Russ Allbery wrote on 09/09/2018:
> Oh, hm, yes, I rather like this idea too, particularly combined with
> putting those symlink packages in their own namespace (and maybe their > own
> section).
Totally makes sense.
> Maybe this is overkill for the relatively small number of these packages
>
Paride Legovini writes:
> It would certainly work, but as you say it is still irritating. I like
> the idea of putting the binaries in a different directory *and*
> providing a "name compatibility package", as it has been already
> suggested. This package would provide the symlinks in /usr/bin
On Sat, Sep 08, 2018 at 08:18:10PM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
For example, in the Rust team, we have been discussing about packaging fd (a
find alternative developed using rust [1]).
We are planning to install it in /usr/bin/fd .. but this conflicts with
something completely different,
On Sep 08, Sean Whitton wrote:
> The current policy protects maintainers and users of less popular
> packages from feeling that their package is less important in Debian,
> just because something else that is more popular comes along and happens
> to use the same name.
Yes, and the I do not
Russ Allbery wrote on 09/09/2018:
> Paride Legovini writes:
>
>> However, there are clearly cases where renaming binaries makes several
>> people unhappy (most likely: the package maintainers, upstream, people
>> writing scripts, users of different distributions), while not making a
>> single
On 2018-09-08, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>> Two different packages must not install programs with different
>> functionality but with the same filenames.
>>
> I think the policy should be changed.
> It was possible to accommodate that when the archive was a few thousand
> packages.
> Or
On Sat, Sep 08, 2018 at 06:07:43PM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
>
> > Last upload of ax25-node was in 2008, in 2009 it was effectively orphaned,
> > the TC bug was filed in 2011 and resolved in 2012, in 2015 ax25-node was
> > removed with "ROM; no activity, open
Hi!
On Sat, 2018-09-08 at 20:18:10 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Le 08/09/2018 à 18:39, Sean Whitton a écrit :
> > On Fri 07 Sep 2018 at 10:10PM +0200, Ruben Undheim wrote:
> > > However, I think the policy gives us a lot of freedom to choose (it
> > > is not very strict in this case).
> >
> >
Paride Legovini writes:
> However, there are clearly cases where renaming binaries makes several
> people unhappy (most likely: the package maintainers, upstream, people
> writing scripts, users of different distributions), while not making a
> single user happier. This is especially true with
Sean Whitton - 08.09.18, 21:03:
> My understanding is that there are quite deep social reasons for the
> current policy (please note, though, that I was not involved in Debian
> when this piece of policy was created; neither was I involved during
> the nodejs TC decision).
>
> The current policy
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> Last upload of ax25-node was in 2008, in 2009 it was effectively orphaned,
> the TC bug was filed in 2011 and resolved in 2012, in 2015 ax25-node was
> removed with "ROM; no activity, open security issues, de facto orphaned"
> (the status that was true when the TC
Hello Sean,
Sean Whitton wrote on 08/09/2018:
> Hello Sylvestre,
>
> On Sat 08 Sep 2018 at 08:18PM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>
>> Renaming binaries is a big pain, it is confusing for the user, making the
>> life of the maintainer
>> harder, the documentations won't reflect the
Hi,
> > Renaming binaries is a big pain, it is confusing for the user, making the
> > life of the maintainer
> > harder, the documentations won't reflect the Debian-reality.
> >
> > The wording should be changed from "must" to "should":
> > ---
> > Two different packages should not install
On Sat, Sep 08, 2018 at 12:03:18PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> My understanding is that there are quite deep social reasons for the
> current policy (please note, though, that I was not involved in Debian
> when this piece of policy was created; neither was I involved during the
> nodejs TC
Hello Sylvestre,
On Sat 08 Sep 2018 at 08:18PM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Renaming binaries is a big pain, it is confusing for the user, making the
> life of the maintainer
> harder, the documentations won't reflect the Debian-reality.
>
> The wording should be changed from "must" to
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 2:29 AM Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Le 08/09/2018 à 18:39, Sean Whitton a écrit :
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Fri 07 Sep 2018 at 10:10PM +0200, Ruben Undheim wrote:
> >
> >> However, I think the policy gives us a lot of freedom to choose (it is not
> >> very
> >>
Hello,
Le 08/09/2018 à 18:39, Sean Whitton a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> On Fri 07 Sep 2018 at 10:10PM +0200, Ruben Undheim wrote:
>
>> However, I think the policy gives us a lot of freedom to choose (it is not
>> very
>> strict in this case).
>
> I don't understand. This seems pretty strict:
>
>
46 matches
Mail list logo
