Le Sat, Oct 04, 2025 at 06:21:16PM +0200, Tobias Frost a écrit : > Mmm.. I would not rename the source package to make way for the new > packages, this can create issues down the road if one is not > expericenced in Debian packaging quirks. (renaming src:passage also > breaks it's history in Debian tooling…)
Do you have concrete examples about what could break following such a renaming? I’m not convinced passage (the video game) would lose anything from being renamed, while passage (the command-line tool) would benefit a lot from keeping the same command name that it has in all other distributions. We could rename only the launcher script, from /usr/games/passage to /usr/games/passage-game, witout renaming the source package. Thus keeping the benefit of calling the password manager from the expected /usr/bin/passage command. But I fear this would bring more confusion, with src:passage not providing a passage command, while src:passage-password-manager would provide it. --- > Would it be a possiblity to see if the support for age could be > implemented in pass, the project passage forked from? This seems to > be the only difference, especially as upstream of passage doesn't look > quite active, last commit 1 year ago, and there are unanswered issues > and pull requests as well -- I fear it's development might have stalled > upstream, making the case for taking over the name "passage" weaker. This would indeed be the best way to handle that, assuming pass upstream would be willing to maintain two distinct encryption backends.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
