Re: [PATCH] Debian packaging for 0.99.4

From: Sebastian Kuzminsky <seb@highlab.com>
Date: Aug 11, 2005, 05:01 UTC
Message-ID: <E1E35C2-0004kt-VH@highlab.com>
In-Reply-To: <46a038f90508102144358a4bcf@mail.gmail.com>

Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On 8/11/05, Sebastian Kuzminsky <seb@highlab.com> wrote:
> > I agree completely - it's super bogus to rename the two central programs.
> > It makes Debian essentially incompatible with the rest of the world.
> 
> Well, I doubt this problem lies with Debian. GNU Interactive Tools is
> packaged for most (all?) distributions, and has been there for ages. A
> quick google search shows a page tracking a few of its distributed
> versions: http://linux.maruhn.com/sec/git.html
> 
> So it is fair to assume all distros are going to rename it, and wreak
> havoc with the calls to the binaries from cogito, qgit, etc. Perhaps
> it'd be better to rename the binaries within the git project. Better
> Junio at it than a bunch of package maintainers... It'll also nullify
> the risk of different packagers choosing different renaming
> strategies.

Yes, this would be best. Linus was resistant to this idea, but maybe Junio will be sympathetic?

I'll once again suggest "lit", for "Linu{x,s} Information Tracker", meaning "filled with light", "on fire", and "drunk".

While we're at it, renaming cogito's "cg" to "cog" would fix another filename conflict in Debian, and would give the right hand something to do while the left hand seeks from c to g. ;-)

-- 
Sebastian Kuzminsky