-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 14:18:34 -0400 =?utf-8?Q?Antoine_Beaupr=C3=A9?= < anar...@orangeseeds.org> wrote: > > It's not on the package name, but there's already a clash on the binary > name, which we should be mindful of: > gitsome provides direct integration with GitHub and GitHub Enterprise in > a terminal. > > Since it's a git (and github, even!) related tool, we might even want to > Conflict with it directly...
Since there is already a package that uses that binary name, who should change it? Do we follow a first-come first-serve binary name reservation strategy? I don't think it's a big deal to change the name. I'm not sure what to rename it to. I don't like binaries with long, descriptive names, but I don't know what we could use that is short. I will raise awareness about this issue with the upstream developers. - -- Best regards, Brian T. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJHBAEBCgAxFiEE9fpVo96/flopdKOfgw2Ncu3Nhn0FAmEZ7NQTHGJyaWFuQGhh c2h2YXVsdC5pbwAKCRCDDY1y7c2GfeX5EAChFZ4pCKTj1uvCuyAxCzr12dfdfIqC U27Bc1UwT5DAKs9T2EjihTkhstinwN3ZKLmOOznH1+lnmbdlXccYRtV4BZvu3diD iyzP4t+5voLnxViYzO8WjHcxSlA7qNUY1/16nmOuTvrNmpaxS/54gjOyFXjdOWVc CGCHUm2TG3aMTaW+OfOizBG+T+ThNNrkRg/8cKStgcR2vB8gwa/gJdT4qccsLCHv ufrxVg3p7VzjVvBD7W4Z5uczqwnYR7/3FK3M65FH1TKZTCxDIv3BYGKIIEM0nXnJ sLzFCucItVVi/Cc7CJf/sH9T49BzVfL+GTGFbDhue70+NpfOa++z7p22qq211Zvd 5E2vRXSLpQVmMY8QZy8+xDgBvi1CP1hBx98XbSE1RquV902naHowsFxTa4nkAPiK nYU81R8TbLGwdPUXO/SgnSLQ9IlA7IotwfXmEhPAge8rYIR+2TtE0Da6ROeT8Tj4 lDiH9p6RS78Y49wihatMkpxKNkypQdUwq5AZb8p3b2j/h7hFz6l9m0TcAxxkggjZ HPFDt0n0hGr6KzAtemFMP04OyqurMVCEtwn84ySmUI3Sy9i42uT36c2M7+TOd2iu C2R/kXr7ZJ9fWxwpAkyv4/4rPqu2AwSeCluzUPRLTxR/8zqlTIwGK3tDlNQH3bQD aTB5+YZvyIHIeg== =YHqO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
