Bug#1099044: passage name conflicts with new package from ITP #1098893

[Tobias Frost]

On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 05:47:09PM +0200, Antoine Le Gonidec wrote:
> Le Sat, Oct 04, 2025 at 06:21:16PM +0200, Tobias Frost a écrit :
> > Mmm.. I would not rename the source package to make way for the new
> > packages, this can create issues down the road if one is not
> > expericenced in Debian packaging quirks. (renaming src:passage also
> > breaks it's history in Debian tooling…) 
> 
> Do you have concrete examples about what could break following such a
> renaming?
> 
> I’m not convinced passage (the video game) would lose anything from
> being renamed, while passage (the command-line tool) would benefit a lot
> from keeping the same command name that it has in all other
> distributions.
>
> We could rename only the launcher script, from /usr/games/passage to
> /usr/games/passage-game, witout renaming the source package. Thus
> keeping the benefit of calling the password manager from the expected
> /usr/bin/passage command. But I fear this would bring more confusion,
> with src:passage not providing a passage command, while
> src:passage-password-manager would provide it.
> 

To be clear, I was talking about ([source|binary]-)*package names*, not
binary (as in executables) names.

Regarding binary names, Policy §10.1 says you should consult the
debian-devel mailing list to soliciate input and find an solution.


For renaming the packages, I also suggest to discuss that on
debian-devel too. I would rename source packages, there be dragons
and Debian tooling is not made to cope well with renamed source and
taken over source packages, AFAIK.

One pratical thing is that passage (the game) is at version 4, while
passte (the tool) is at 1.x.x - which is lower. This would require an
epoch from the start (also required to be discussed on debian-devel)

So, I guess, you want to redirect this discussion to debian-devel.
Especially as there will be dragons - dragons myself has never heard of
before, even after a decade in the project. 

(I did once, long long ago, a source package rename, I can't rememer
which package it was, I can't remember the actualy problems I
encountered, but I remember it was more painful than anticipated.)

> ---
> 
> > Would it be a possiblity to see if the support for age could be
> > implemented in pass, the project passage forked from? This seems to 
> > be the only difference, especially as upstream of passage doesn't look
> > quite active, last commit 1 year ago, and there are unanswered issues
> > and pull requests as well -- I fear it's development might have stalled
> > upstream, making the case for taking over the name "passage" weaker.
> 
> This would indeed be the best way to handle that, assuming pass upstream
> would be willing to maintain two distinct encryption backends.

Yes.

Another option:
"passage" (the pass replacement) could possibly use "pass" as binary
name, as (with only taken a quick look at the package) the seem to be
compatible enough so that they are interchangeable -- one could even use
the alternatives system to even install both of them.

-- 
tobi