[Debichem-devel] [Debichem-commits] [debichem] r4720 - unstable/elkcode/debian

[Daniel Leidert]

Am Samstag, den 21.09.2013, 22:53 +0200 schrieb Michael Banck:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 08:49:43PM +0000, dleidert at alioth.debian.org wrote:
> > * debian/rules (override_dh_install): Rename binary to elk-lapw (closes: #720044).
> 
> I think it would be better to keep the binary as "elk" and conflict with
> the "elk" package.  The other elk package does not appear to be very
> popular either and I cannot image a lot of users would like to install
> both.

IMO the rename is a good decision. The project itself states, that
someone using and customizing the elk code package should use a name
like elk-foo [1]. Maybe we can agree to some other name, that follows
this rule, if you don't like elk-lapw? The probably best way might be
talking to the project and explaining the issue.

ATM IMO we can still do all these things easily, because popcon
currently doesn't list any installation.

[1] http://elk.sourceforge.net/#contributions

> Is there some other disadvantages I am missing for a Conflicts?

Well, that is usually a violation of its dedicated use. 

Regards, Daniel