Web lists-archives.com

Re: Reusing source package name of long-removed, unrelated package




On 2019-02-06 21:15:38 +0000 (+0000), Ian Jackson wrote:
[...]
> reusing a source package name is IMO almost never (maybe never at
> all) the right idea.
[...]

To take an example, I maintain the weather-util packages in main.
The weather-util binary package provides a /usr/bin/weather
executable because upstream calls the project "weather" but a
release or so before I packaged it there was a game in non-free with
a source package named weather which had been orphaned and
subsequently removed. Rather than deal with the confusion I opted to
just call my source package weather-util and named its main binary
package the same, even though I could technically per policy have
used weather for one or both of them (the previous weather source
package didn't even create a binary package of the same name, if
memory serves, so no transitional period would have been required).
More than a dozen years have passed, and this choice really hasn't
presented a problem whatsoever.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature