On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 06:11:52PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > Packages that already install programs to /usr/games, where another > > package installs a program of the same with different functionality > > to a different directory on the default PATH, may continue to do so. > > Hi Sean, > > I would like to know why this exemption is only given to games? We have > scientific software that have been installing conflicting binaries for > more than one decade without any of their users complaining about it, > and I do not understand why it becomes a priority to change them now.
Are they installing them into different directories? That would be surprising to me. > (I am not questionning the value of having a cleaner namespace, I am > just pointing to the fact doing such improvement will be at the expense > of doing other improvements, since our time is limited). > > I also wonder if the cost of this policy will increase with time given > that a) the number of existing software is increasing, b) the number of > Debian packages is increasing, c) upstreams care less and less about > co-instability because of containers, conda namespaces etc. > > Importantly, each time we rename a binary, we become incompatible with > third-party scripts, upstream documentation, *overflow advices and LLM > outputs that summarise the whole of that. All of this applies to the old version of the Policy. -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
