Naming problem for the "Falcon Programming Language" in Ubuntu.

[Emmet Hikory]

On Jan 14 January 2008 11:31 AM, Giancarlo Niccolai wrote:
> Up to date, several MOTUs have checked and reported there is no
> current namespace clash. I am also willing to call my package
> "falconpl", which is also the name of the site:

On Jan 14, 2008 1:42 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> My suggestion is to call your package falconpl as you've said you would and
> then conflict against falcon.  After that, we can let the market decide.  If
> one of these packages gets popular enough to cause the other difficulty with
> the conflicts, then the less popular one will move their file in /usr/bin.

    I don't have a strong opinion about which is the right falcon, but
such a Conflicts: would be wrong.  Section 10.1 of the Debian Policy
Manual (1) clearly states, in part:

Two different packages must not install programs with different
functionality but with the same filenames. (The case of two programs
having the same functionality but different implementations is handled
via "alternatives" or the "Conflicts" mechanism. See Maintainer
Scripts, Section 3.9 and Conflicting binary packages - Conflicts,
Section 7.3 respectively.) If this case happens, one of the programs
must be renamed. The maintainers should report this to the
debian-devel mailing list and try to find a consensus about which
program will have to be renamed. If a consensus cannot be reached,
both programs must be renamed.

    Regarding the dispute, I suggest that we follow a similar
procedure as in Debian.  The conflict should be discussed on this list
(as opposed to debian-devel), and if a consensus is reached, that
solution followed.  If no consensus is reached, no package uses
/usr/bin/falcon for now.

On Jan 14 January 2008 11:31 AM, Giancarlo Niccolai wrote:
> I would argue that the way MOTU have managed the whole situation is
> questionable under the "Ubuntu Code of Conduct" that we all have signed.

    This should be discussed in the parallel thread in another forum,
as recommended by Scott, and any resolution of any possible CoC issues
do not affect the technical problem of two packages providing a single
filename with two different functionalities.

1: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html

-- 
Emmet HIKORY