=> wesnoth-1.10.5-5.fc19.src.rpm => wesnoth-tools-1.10.5-5.fc19.i686 in fedora-development-i386 File conflict with: cutter-1.2.2-4.fc19.i686 /usr/bin/cutter [semi-automated bug report]
Given that wesnoth is a far older package, we'll probably break fewer things if we modify cutter than if we modify wesnoth-tools. If we even choose to modify anything.
* "First come, first served" doesn't work well with regard to file names in standard $PATH. Occupying generic file names, such as /usr/bin/cutter and /usr/bin/exploder, isn't ideal for any project. The wesnoth-tools are command-line programs to modify PNG files. * I've submitted this RFE in the Battle for Wesnoth bug tracker: https://gna.org/bugs/index.php?20615 * There's a second "cutter" project, btw: http://www.digitage.co.uk/digitage/software/cutter * It sounds more natural for a project "cutter" to also name its program "cutter", even if that's a rather generic name. * The related packaging guidelines are this (just for the record): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Incompatible_Binary_Files_with_Conflicting_Naming_.28and_stubborn_upstreams.29
True, and cutter is more likely to be called from scripts, etc. How receptive do you think wesnoth upstream is going to be to this change? The names you suggest in the upstream RFE sound reasonable.
Anything could happen, from ignoring the ticket to disagreeing violently. ;-) The Fedora guidelines say: | [...] if neither upstream is willing to rename the binaries | to resolve the conflict, AND the binaries are not viable candidates | for alternatives or environment modules (incompatible runtimes), | as long as there are no clear cases for both packages to be installed | simultaneously, explicit Conflicts are permitted at the packager's | discretion. Both packages must carry Conflicts in this case.
Le sigh. :) Keep us posted.
I've missed this bug, sorry. By the way, I think renaming cutter binary to resolve the conflict in fedora package is reasonable, but I needs to ask other cutter developper whether renaming cutter binary in upstream is also acceptable or not.
No worries. Let us know what you find out.
I talked with other developper about this issue. There is a fondness about cutter command name, but renaming cutter binary in upstream is acceptable. Then plan to release new version which contains cutter command (for deprecated) and new (renamed) command in other distributions such as Debian/Ubuntu or so. On the other hand, plan to release new version which contains renamed cutter command (cut-runner or something...) only in Fedora.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 19 development cycle. Changing version to '19'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 19 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 19 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora19
This message is a notice that Fedora 19 is now at end of life. Fedora has stopped maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 19. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '19'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 19 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 19 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2015-01-06. Fedora 19 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.