On 13/04/10 at 15:16 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 15:09:56 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > On 13/04/10 at 14:49 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 13:43:26 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > > > > So, there's no perfect solution, and I think that the current one > > > > (assume that there's no common user of music player daemon and mpich2) > > > > is the best compromise. > > > > > > I disagree that sweeping a serious policy violation under the carpet > > > (and preventing co-installation of mpd and mpich in the process) can be > > > qualified with 'best' anything. > > > > So what do you propose? > > Talk to the other package maintainer (and possibly upstreams). Rename > one or both binaries.
(Why did you file the bug against mpich2 only, then?) Pavan, we have a problem: the Music Player Daemon already uses the "mpd" binary name in Debian. I initially "solved" that by conflicting with the mpd package, so both don't get installed together, but Julien Cristau is now complaining that this isn't a correct solution. It seems that the "correct" solution would be to rename the mpd binary to something else in Debian. Which sucks because: (1) it will confuse users. However, we can hope that most users are controlling mpd with the mpd* commands. (2) it is currently hard to change the name of the mpd binary in mpich2 (it is an hard assumption in mpd* that it is called mpd, and not something else). What do you think we should do? I would like a solution to this to be found between the Ubuntu Lucid hard freeze (Apr 26th) since I don't want users of Ubuntu Lucid and Debian Squeeze to have a different behaviour for something so important. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
