On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 11:12:23PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote: > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 9:48 AM, costamagnagianfra...@yahoo.it > <costamagnagianfra...@yahoo.it> wrote: > > > > Hi Steffen and all, > > > > today while talking with a backbox project administrator I discovered that > > popular tools such as openvas directly calls the amap binary. > > > > I never talked with them, but I don't think it is feasible to ask to every > > security tool provider to patch their code for the only debian benefit. > > > > I think I'm then changing again my opinion: the conflict field might be the > > only proper way to be sure such popular tools (not packaged in debian and > > some of them not even free) continue to work. > > > > Is this one a good reason for a conflict? > > Again, according to Policy 10.1, as well as precedent that was established by > the CTTE decision regarding the namespace collision between ax25-node vs. > nodejs, no, it isn't; your argument is no different from that of the nodejs > maintainers, arguing that /usr/bin/node should be taken over by nodejs simply > because it's already widely used by the nodejs community. > > If you feel strongly enough about this issue, I'd suggest filing a bug > against debian-policy, going through the process and gathering consensus to > change 10.1 (e.g. perhaps by weakening it to a "should" instead of a "must", > or by proposing a carefully-worded exception to existing policy).
But just to be clear, the odds of changing policy are vanishingly small. Rename the binary in Debian, do whatever foo is necessary to provide a PATH that doesn't rename the binary that can be injected in the right place for callers/environments that won't accept a renamed binary, or give up on packaging it in Debian. -- Jonathan Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140708125908.gb30...@bryant.redmars.org
