Re: Proposal to avoid executable naming conflicts (was: Bug#753704: ITP: amap -- Next-generation scanning tool for pentesters)

2014-07-08 Thread Paul Tagliamonte
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 03:57:20PM -0400, Eric Cooper wrote: > On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 06:57:02AM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:31:12AM -0400, Eric Cooper wrote: > > > Since Debian package names must already be unique, we ought to be able > > > to leverage that to avo

Re: Proposal to avoid executable naming conflicts (was: Bug#753704: ITP: amap -- Next-generation scanning tool for pentesters)

2014-07-08 Thread Eric Cooper
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 06:57:02AM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:31:12AM -0400, Eric Cooper wrote: > > Since Debian package names must already be unique, we ought to be able > > to leverage that to avoid having to fight over which package gets to > > claim which binary

Re: Proposal to avoid executable naming conflicts (was: Bug#753704: ITP: amap -- Next-generation scanning tool for pentesters)

2014-07-08 Thread Chris Bannister
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:31:12AM -0400, Eric Cooper wrote: > Since Debian package names must already be unique, we ought to be able > to leverage that to avoid having to fight over which package gets to > claim which binary name. > > What about making it into a user's install-time decision, > ra

Re: Proposal to avoid executable naming conflicts

2014-07-08 Thread Russ Allbery
Josselin Mouette writes: > Le mardi 08 juillet 2014 à 11:31 -0400, Eric Cooper a écrit : >> Since Debian package names must already be unique, we ought to be able >> to leverage that to avoid having to fight over which package gets to >> claim which binary name. >> >> What about making it into

Re: Proposal to avoid executable naming conflicts (was: Bug#753704: ITP: amap -- Next-generation scanning tool for pentesters)

2014-07-08 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mardi 08 juillet 2014 à 11:31 -0400, Eric Cooper a écrit : > Since Debian package names must already be unique, we ought to be able > to leverage that to avoid having to fight over which package gets to > claim which binary name. > > What about making it into a user's install-time decision, >

Re: Proposal to avoid executable naming conflicts (was: Bug#753704: ITP: amap -- Next-generation scanning tool for pentesters)

2014-07-08 Thread Jérémy Lal
Le mardi 08 juillet 2014 à 09:04 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit : > On Tue, 08 Jul 2014, Eric Cooper wrote: > > What about making it into a user's install-time decision, rather than > > a developer's packaging-time decision? > > Any user who wants to can override the rename by using dpkg-divert. Bu

Re: Proposal to avoid executable naming conflicts (was: Bug#753704: ITP: amap -- Next-generation scanning tool for pentesters)

2014-07-08 Thread Don Armstrong
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014, Eric Cooper wrote: > What about making it into a user's install-time decision, rather than > a developer's packaging-time decision? Any user who wants to can override the rename by using dpkg-divert. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com We were

Proposal to avoid executable naming conflicts (was: Bug#753704: ITP: amap -- Next-generation scanning tool for pentesters)

2014-07-08 Thread Eric Cooper
Since Debian package names must already be unique, we ought to be able to leverage that to avoid having to fight over which package gets to claim which binary name. What about making it into a user's install-time decision, rather than a developer's packaging-time decision? As a proof of concept,