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

[Giancarlo Niccolai]

Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
> 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 second that. I seems to me that Giancarlo has not understood what several 
> people have already attempted to explain on IRC, and that Scott also writes 
> above. Thus, let me try again to make it clear:
>
> It is required that there is no package name clash, and by choosing 
> falconpl as the package name, that has been achieved.
>
> The remaining problem is the clash of binary names. Dpkg has a way of 
> dealing with that, and that is the Conflicts: tag in debian/control.
>   
To be clear: I second this decision TOO. I have actually already DONE 
IT. I was going to *upload* it, when a second negative advocating was 
posted, right in the middle of the chat session where other MOTUs (i.e. 
ScottK) were resolving for this solution:
---------------------

Return-path: <bounces at canonical.com>
Envelope-to: gc at niccolai.cc
Delivery-date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:55:44 -0800
From: =?utf-8?q?Nafallo_Bj=C3=A4levik?= <nafallo at magicalforest.se>
X-Generated-By: Launchpad (canonical.com)
....

This package source and binary needs to be renamed. We already have
falcon. Please make sure they are co-installable.

---------------------
As I received this notify, I understood there was the need of bringing 
up the topic to find a solution, as just "renaming the binary" is a bit 
cryptic, and the conversation on the chat was going on like "change the 
name of  /usr/bin/falcon, and DON'T even try to use Conflict!" . I don't 
say this is unacceptable, but I wanted that to be discussed, and to be 
discussed considering the alternative you just said.

So, mor0, it was not me not having understood what you're saying here.

As my position about falconpl/Conflict is anyhow clearly left open in my 
first mail, (in which I am just asking for an open discussion, and state 
10 points why changing the /usr/bin/falcon program name would be 
problematic) it seems it has not be fully read; I understand, there was 
much material in that.

> I see no point of making a big fuzz about this rather trivial problem. Put 
> a Conflicts: tag in control, and Bob's your uncle.
>   
That was the point. I raised the fuzz, technically, because the decision 
was too controversial, and there was the need for an open discussion, 
and morally because there was NO NEED to just sneak in then other 
package. We had already half an agreement to go like that; some open 
discussion in the channel would have just resolved the question. What I 
want to know is just if it is correct, under the CoC terms, to just 
unilaterally do things and then ask others to conforms, even when an 
open and cooperative mood has been shown on the other side. As if it is 
so, I am missing the whole point of "ubuntu", which is very important to me.

Bests,
Giancarlo Niccolai.