On 21 Jan 2019, at 16:55, J. Scheurich <muft...@web.de> wrote: > > Dear developer of white_dune, >> I am the original author of the dune build system [1] for the OCaml >> language. I'm writing to you as I have recently been made aware that >> there is a conflict in Debian over the filename /usr/bin/dune. Indeed, >> /usr/bin/dune is currently used by the white_dune package. As a >> result, our software which also installs a binary called "dune" cannot >> be added to Debian. > > Unfortunatley, i have no control over the debian build. > Debian still ships version 0.31 while version 0.99pl280 is recent. > I asked for years to update it, no luck 8-( >> Given that our software is a command line tool, the name of the tool >> is extremely important to us. > > white_dune can also be used on the commandline (for conversion > to RIB, C. c++, java from to X3D/XML ...). > >> So I was wondering if you would be >> willing to let us use the name /usr/bin/dune and only use >> /usr/bin/white_dune for your white_dune software? > > Better /usr/bin/wdune, this is the short form of white_dune. > > "dune" is very popular as a name, there is also a numerical > program: > > https://www.dune-project.org/ > > white_dune started as "dune" by Stephen F. White > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/dune/ > > As i forked it, i changed the name to "white_dune"
Thank you very much indeed for the quick response! I am copying the Debian developers on bug #919951: this is OCaml and white_dune coming to an agreement that /usr/bin/wdune is an acceptable binary for white_dune, and /usr/bin/dune for the OCaml tool. The packages can therefore coexist. Please also note the white_dune maintainer’s long-standing request for white_dune version 0.31 to be updated to 0.99pl280 in the package. regards, Anil
