Conflicts in Rawhide i386 (part 2)

[Alan Dunn]

Upstream said the name should probably be changed and that they have
done so in the past with previous binaries in the package. While that
isn't a solid commitment to doing it in the next version, I would say
it's probably good enough to change it, which I'm going to do now.

- Alan

2008/8/4 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com>:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 10:36:34PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>>
>>> coq-8.1pl3-2.fc10.i386
>>>  File conflict with: coda-client-6.9.4-0.1.rc2.fc10.i386
>>>     /usr/bin/parser
>>
>> Hmmm, I thought that was going to happen.
>>
>>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450323#c16
>>
>> 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.
>
> -Toshio
>
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>