On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 11:30:35PM +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 08:18:42PM +0000, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Uwe Kleine-König commented on a discussion: https://salsa.debian.org/ukleinek/sparse/-/merge_requests/2#note_185155 > > > > There is still another issue that popped up in the meantime: > > https://bugs.debian.org/966706 > > Hmmm, I think that a corner of my mind was silently worried it > will happen. > > > The options are: > > > > - add a Conflicts: biosquid > > (this is the ugliest option) > > - rename sindex to something else > > - convince the bioquid people to rename their sindex > > - stop shipping sindex > > > > For now I will go for "stop shipping sindex", do you have an opinion for a long-term plan? > > [+CC to sindex's author] > > Not really. > Would it be easy to install it under the name 'sparse-sindex' or > 'sparse-index'? > > One thing I would like (in some future release) is to split > the sparse package at least in 2: > * one with sparse itself > - it has no dependencies (except the libc, a compiler compatible > with gcc and GNU make for the build) > - maybe cgcc should be included in the package too (which would > add a dependency on perl) > * one with the others tools > - but maybe it would even be better to the big ones in their > own packages with their own dependencies) > But this would not really solve the problem here. Renaming of sindex was an option for me, but since you have a plan to split the package anyway, then I think it's better to do so. I tried to use the libsparse.a and it looks like it works fine [1]. I spoke with Oleg Nesterov and he also does not mind moving this utility to a separate repository. [1] https://github.com/legionus/sindex -- Rgrds, legion
