Hi, Adam... On Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2008, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 16:54 +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > > On 2008-07-24 16:42, Christoph Haas wrote: > > > Weird. I wasn't aware of an existing python-babel. And I'm > > > especially suprised that the FTP masters didn't see the conflict > > > either. > > > > That's weird, indeed. Nor did anybody reply to your ITP and > > upload mails. The existing python-babel is build from source > > package "babel", while yours is binary=source=python-babel. > > So there is no conflict in the source names. > > > > Btw. python-pybabel would be an option for the name, as the > > packaged executable is called pybabel, right? > > Another option is for me to rename my python-babel to python-sidl, as > this is mostly the babel/SIDL runtime for python, like libsidl1.2.0-java > and libsidl1.2.0(-dev). In contrast babel1.2.0 has the babel SIDL > "compiler". My guess is that your package probably has better name > recognition as python-babel than mine. > > I can go ahead and do that, but it will require a trip through the NEW > queue -- as would your change. Because my babel wasn't in etch, only > testing/unstable users need to be managed via Conflicts/Replaces.
Don't worry. I don't have any reverse dependencies. And your package was in Debian since 2003. Thanks for the offer. But Martin is right that renaming it to "python-pybabel" wouldn't really hurt because that's what the central Python script is called that "my" Babel delivers. It will get another cycle through NEW but the release team already signalled that it will get into Lenny. Perhaps we will confuse the users with python-babel versus python-pybabel. Cheers Christoph
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
