Conflicts in Rawhide i386 (part 2)
a.badger at gmail.com
Mon Aug 4 16:36:43 UTC 2008
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 10:36:34PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> File conflict with: coda-client-6.9.4-0.1.rc2.fc10.i386
> Hmmm, I thought that was going to happen.
> Down at the bottom of that comment I said:
> BTW having a binary called /usr/bin/parser is probably a bad idea.
> How do Debian package this file? They usually rename such generic
> names ('coqparser' or the like). If Debian rename it, then we should
> do so too.
> We checked Debian, and in fact they ship this as /usr/bin/parser too,
> which is why we left it.
> Not sure what is the best thing to do here:
> (1) Rename it and thus be inconsistent with both upstream & Debian.
> (2) Rename Coda's "parser" (breaking things?)
We should definitely rename one or both /usr/bin/parser's. The steps
should be something like this:
1) Contact upstream and ask if they are amenable to renaming the binary
in their next release. Then try to rename our binary now.
2) If upstream isn't willing to, see if we can at least get the blessing
to do it locally with a given name.
3) Check with other distros (Maybe Debian now but discuss on
distributions-list at freedesktop.org about keeping a distro-wide list) if
they've seen the problem/would be willing to rename their binaries.
4) Do the rename locally.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080804/4e192f30/attachment.bin
More information about the devel