Potential conflict in package names - bear-devel and bear

[Dan Čermák]

Hi everyone,

I have recently tried to package the utility called Bear (Build EAR),
a tool that generates a clang compilation database for build systems
that cannot generate one themselves.

I tried to submit the package and during review I was made aware of the
package bear-devel, which is already in the fedora repository. This
package are the development files for a game engine and are completely
unrelated to Bear. However, I can see a potential confusion for users,
when bear-devel and bear have nothing in common.

My question is: how should I address this issue? Renaming my proposed
package to Build-ear would be an option, but the binary should still be
called bear, to avoid confusion for users. Should I ask the upstream
author about their opinion concerning renaming?


Thanks in advance,

Dan

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "DČ" == Dan Čermák
> <dan.cermak(a)cgc-instruments.com&gt; writes: 
DC> I tried to submit the package and during review I was made aware of
DČ> the package bear-devel, which is already in the fedora
DČ> repository.

Actually the source package name is just "bear", it merely produces
bear-devel, bear-engine and bear-factory.  So the repository 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bear already exists, and your
conflict is more than just an issue with confusion about bear-devel.

DČ> My question is: how should I address this issue? Renaming my
DČ> proposed package to Build-ear would be an option, but the binary
DČ> should still be called bear, to avoid confusion for users. Should I
DČ> ask the upstream author about their opinion concerning renaming?

Fortunately there is nothing in the distribution which provides
/usr/bin/bear, so there wouldn't be a problem there.

I could see perhaps persuading the bear maintainer to rename their
entire package to "bear-engine" and have "bear-engine-devel" and
"bear-engine-factory".  Its binaries are "bend-image",
"image-cutter"
(which itself seems conflict-prone), some things with a "bf-" prefix,
and "running-bear".  But any conversation about renaming is one you
should have with the bear package maintainer.

 - J<

[Scott Talbert]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

> >>>>> "DČ" == Dan Čermák
> <dan.cermak(a)cgc-instruments.com&gt; writes:
>
>  DC> I tried to submit the package and during review I was made aware of
>  DČ> the package bear-devel, which is already in the fedora
>  DČ> repository.
>
>  Actually the source package name is just "bear", it merely produces
>  bear-devel, bear-engine and bear-factory.  So the repository
>  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bear already exists, and your
>  conflict is more than just an issue with confusion about bear-devel.
>
>  DČ> My question is: how should I address this issue? Renaming my
>  DČ> proposed package to Build-ear would be an option, but the binary
>  DČ> should still be called bear, to avoid confusion for users. Should I
>  DČ> ask the upstream author about their opinion concerning renaming?
>
>  Fortunately there is nothing in the distribution which provides
>  /usr/bin/bear, so there wouldn't be a problem there.
>
>  I could see perhaps persuading the bear maintainer to rename their
>  entire package to "bear-engine" and have "bear-engine-devel" and
>  "bear-engine-factory".  Its binaries are "bend-image",
> "image-cutter"
>  (which itself seems conflict-prone), some things with a "bf-" prefix,
>  and "running-bear".  But any conversation about renaming is one you
>  should have with the bear package maintainer. 
This is also not the first time this has come up.  There is an (apparently 
stalled?) movement to rename bear already, see:

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail].o...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539207

Scott