On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 9:25 PM Geert Stappers <stapp...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 12:40:48AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 08:27:51PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > > > To give a brief history, Debian had "getmail" which was based on > > > Python2 and was removed. Then there was a fork available named > > > "getmail6" which was based on Python3. A transitional package linked > > > them by #979060. > > > > > > Now, the upstream of "getmail" has raised a bug in Debian asking > > > "getmail6" to be removed or renamed and he claims that users of > > > getmail6 are imposing a support burden on him as users are thinking it > > > to be getmail and mailing the getmail mailing list. #996569 > > > > > > I went through the getmail mailing list archive and could find only > > > one such mail. I am not sure what to reply to him, and need your > > > suggestions about what to do now please. > > Debian is a wrong place to do this. > > And if not for the trademark violation claims I'd suggest ignoring this. > > But the claims should be directed to the upstream first.
Thanks, I will forward the bug upstream. But incidentally, I was searching the trademark database and it seems "getmail" is a trademark registered by "Blue Cube Solutions Limited" in UK. https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00003129080 Not sure if "getmail" now should be using the name "getmail" as its a registered trademark of another company. :) > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=996569 IS opened > by the upstream author. > > In https://marc.info/?l=getmail&m=163440038426857&w=2 > is Charles Cazabon, upstream author, expressing that > the poorly named fork of getmail should get a name without > the string 'getmail'. > > In thread https://marc.info/?t=163411972300003&r=1&w=2 you find > also the author of the fork, Roland Puntaier. > > > Back to the core of the bugreport, getmail vs getmail6. > > <opinion> > getmail6 was a good idea. > time did learn us it was too optimistic. > </opinion> Why is it too optimistic? imho, getmail6 is a good package which has good upstream support. Roland had been very prompt in fixing any bug report that I or anyone else has reported. > > > <problem> > the name getmail6 > </problem> > > > Solution would be a different name. And, this is what I fail to understand. Why is the name a problem? getmail and getmail6 are different packages. Its the transitional package which let the users of getmail use getmail6 when they upgraded to Bullseye. > > When no one comes with a different name, > is removal of getmail6 from the Debian archive the next best thing. And, this is also another point which I am failing to understand. How does the removal of getmail6 help Bullseye? -- Regards Sudip
