Hi, Am Montag, den 28.07.2008, 15:14 -0500 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel: > On 28 July 2008 at 12:37, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > | reassign 432625 screen-message > | thanks > | > | * Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-28 12:47]: > | > On 27 July 2008 at 17:35, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > | > | Dirk, where did you find send-message? I cannot find such a package > | > | in Debian. > | > > | > Oops, my bad. I meant screen-message. There is a binary package 'sm' that > the > | > bug submission system confuses with my source package 'sm': > | > | So we have a source package sm and a binary package sm build from the > | screen-message source package? > | > | This sounds like a really bad choice. Joachim? > > Yes, one or maybe both of use should change names to match source and > binary. > > I used to be more cavalier and add a given CRAN package foo as just (source > package) foo into Debian, with a binary r-cran-foo. Lately, I have started > to use r-cran-foo for the source as well. May be a solution for my end of > sm. That said, Joachim may also want to name both screen-message even > though the binary command is just sm ...
I really would like to have the binary called sm – after all, for a user tool, the connection between binary and package name is more important than for libraries that are pulled by dependencies. I know that the current sm vs. sm situation is, well, tricky. I quickly talked to dons at DebConf7 and IIRC he said something like: „You can leave it that way, debbugs should theoretically handle this and anything else is an bug.“ But if enough people complain, I’ll rename the binary package, if required. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
