Re: New package netgen-lvs with binary /usr/bin/netgen - already taken
- Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2018 19:31:32 +0200
- From: Ruben Undheim <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: New package netgen-lvs with binary /usr/bin/netgen - already taken
> > 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:
> Two different packages must not install programs with different
> functionality but with the same filenames.
Yes, you are right, when I read it again. What I have been "reading" before is.
"Two different packages must not install programs with different functionality
but with the same filenames if they do not declare that they "Conflict:" with
But it doesn't say that..
So this means there is no way to provide the upstream executable name without
violating the policy? :( - even when using "Conflict:" wisely.
> > The alternatives system is supposed to be used for packages which
> > provide similar functionality (as far as I have understood), and that
> > is absolutely not the case here.
> Right, alternatives is not for this.
> > 5. The netgen-lvs binary package provides basically just a symlink from
> > /usr/bin/netgen to /usr/bin/netgen-lvs
> To my mind, this straightforwardly violates the sentence from Policy
> quoted above, and would thus be RC-buggy.
And it also means that the package pair "nodejs-legacy" and "node" was RC
buggy when the packages were present (jessie I guess)
Does anyone know about other packages this applies for? Any easy way to search
the archive for packages that provide files with the same name?