Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
We should definitely rename one or both /usr/bin/parser's. The steps should be something like this:On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 10:36:34PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:coq-8.1pl3-2.fc10.i386 File conflict with: coda-client-6.9.4-0.1.rc2.fc10.i386 /usr/bin/parserHmmm, I thought that was going to happen. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450323#c16 Down at the bottom of that comment I said: BTW having a binary called /usr/bin/parser is probably a bad idea. How do Debian package this file? They usually rename such generic names ('coqparser' or the like). If Debian rename it, then we should do so too. We checked Debian, and in fact they ship this as /usr/bin/parser too, which is why we left it. Not sure what is the best thing to do here: (1) Rename it and thus be inconsistent with both upstream & Debian. (2) Rename Coda's "parser" (breaking things?)
1) Contact upstream and ask if they are amenable to renaming the binary in their next release. Then try to rename our binary now.
2) If upstream isn't willing to, see if we can at least get the blessing to do it locally with a given name.
3) Check with other distros (Maybe Debian now but discuss on distributions-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx about keeping a distro-wide list) if they've seen the problem/would be willing to rename their binaries.
4) Do the rename locally. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
