Hi Sean, > > However, I think the policy gives us a lot of freedom to choose (it is not > > very > > strict in this case). > > I don't understand. This seems pretty strict: > > Two different packages must not install programs with different > functionality but with the same filenames.
Yes, you are right, when I read it again. What I have been "reading" before is. "Two different packages must not install programs with different functionality but with the same filenames if they do not declare that they "Conflict:" with each other." But it doesn't say that.. So this means there is no way to provide the upstream executable name without violating the policy? :( - even when using "Conflict:" wisely. > > The alternatives system is supposed to be used for packages which > > provide similar functionality (as far as I have understood), and that > > is absolutely not the case here. > > Right, alternatives is not for this. > > > 5. The netgen-lvs binary package provides basically just a symlink from > > /usr/bin/netgen to /usr/bin/netgen-lvs > > To my mind, this straightforwardly violates the sentence from Policy > quoted above, and would thus be RC-buggy. And it also means that the package pair "nodejs-legacy" and "node" was RC buggy when the packages were present (jessie I guess) Does anyone know about other packages this applies for? Any easy way to search the archive for packages that provide files with the same name? Cheers Ruben
