jrnieder at gmail.com
Wed May 2 18:00:15 UTC 2012
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 01:02:14PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
>> (I added leader at debian.org to the Cc: because this is something that
>> I think needs addressed at the leadership level)
> In that case, please clarify what you expect from me :-), especially
> taking in account the fact that DPL's leadership cannot rule on
> technical matters.
I think there has been some uncertainty about procedure. For example:
- When policy 10.1 refers to maintainers reporting naming conflicts to
debian-devel and trying to find consensus about which program is to
be renamed, is that consensus among the maintainers of the packages
involved or some other group? In other words, is stonewalling an
acceptable and viable strategy?
- Policy says that in the absence of consensus, both packages must be
renamed. A number of people have mentioned that that looks like a
bad outcome from the users' perspective.
Policy also states that different packages must not install commands
with different functionality with the same name.
If a consensus develops around a solution that does not follow
policy, could it be implemented? There is something of a precedent
for this kind of question in the transition plan for the
gnuit/git-core command name conflict. This was before my time, but
if I understand correctly then update-alternatives was used for one
release to multiplex between the actual commands and a wrapper
script that used command line arguments to figure out which command
was meant. Ugly as sin (and not a good technical example here), but
it happened because the maintainers of those packages and the
release team agreed it was the best we could do.