]] Stéphane Glondu Hi,
> Le 20/01/2019 à 23:14, Ian Jackson a écrit : > > In #919622 and the associated debian-devel thread, > > "Conflict over /usr/bin/dune" > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/01/msg00227.html > > the file conflict over /usr/bin/dune was discussed. > > > > The rough consensus of the debian-devel thread was that /usr/bin/dune > > ought definitely not to be taken by the ocaml build system, and that > > the best claim on it was the C++ library which already provides a > > number of /usr/bin/dune?* binaries. > > I do not agree there was such concensus. FWIW, I don't think there was any particularly clear consensus, and I also don't think that an absence of a veto from the whitedune maintainers makes it ok to go ahead and NMU whitedune with a renamed binary. [...] > > Additionally the binary package name `dune' for the ocaml tool is bad, > > too. > > Actually, I am not fond of the `dune' name either, but I think it's not > my job to judge and rename it. And I would feel ridiculous asking > upstream for a change (I am already ashamed of this situation). It's not unusual for packages in Debian to be renamed and have their binaries renamed to avoid naming conflicts and it is part of the work of being a maintainer to ensure a package fits well into the Debian ecosystem. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
