> > How would you like to handle this bug? I'm slightly reluctant to rename > > the binary in gromacs for fear of breaking user scripts, but also > > recognize that forutil has been using the name for many more years. > > It's unclear to me which package change would be less disruptive. > > Well, unless it looks like forutil should be removed, I think it has the > "older" rights. > > However, I can understand you about breaking scripts. How about the > following: You rename the binary inside of gromacs, and until release of > etch, you use an symlink inside your package (plus a conflict on > gromacs), so that no existing script is broken now, but people are > encouraged to use the new name? (This would be a policy violation as > well, but I would be willing to etch-ignore this one, because there is a > good reason, and it doesn't really break stuff.)
I'd prefer not to have them conflict, since FORTRAN use is still common in gromacs's field -- co-installability would be a benefit. Best to bite the bullet and rename one, I think. Since I haven't heard from Taketoshi, I'll rename the binary in gromacs and document the change appropriately. I'd hate to see either of our packages miss the etch release by delaying too long. -- Nicholas Breen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
