Path: csiph.com!au2pb.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Ole Streicher Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: [Debian-astro-maintainers] glueviz_0.5.2+dfsg-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:10:02 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Sun Aug 16 14:09:09 2015 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.999 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, LDO_WHITELIST=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 NOT_IN_BL_NJABL=-1.5 CL_IP_EQ_FROM_IP=-2 (check from: .ath. - helo: .liska.ath. - helo-domain: .ath.) FROM/MX_MATCHES_HELO(DOMAIN)=-2; rate: -7 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 26 X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12489 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87zj1rjq7h.fsf@debian.org Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:52:18 +0200 X-Original-Message-ID: <87zj1rjq7h.fsf@debian.org> X-Original-References: <55D08C42.7030306@debian.org> <143973301084.1729.220597708442854494@mitya57.me> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:7183 Dmitry Shachnev writes: > On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:12:34 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: >> One comment on this: I think it is just too simple here to just add a >> "Conflicts" here. Did you investigate the other optione? >> >> * Try to convince glue-sprite to change their Python package name. This >> could work since their package seem to be used just internally. >> >> * Try to convince glueviz upstream to change their package name (to >> glueviz?) >> >> Having two packages with the same name is at least very unfortunate. > > It is not just unfortunate, it is also a violation of Policy ยง10.1, > which says: > > Two different packages must not install programs with different > functionality but with the same filenames. Strictly speacking, these are Python packages and not programs, so I was not sure whether this applies here. Therefore I used the phrasing "at least" :-) Best Ole