Hi everyone,
I have recently tried to package the utility called Bear (Build EAR), a tool that generates a clang compilation database for build systems that cannot generate one themselves.
I tried to submit the package and during review I was made aware of the package bear-devel, which is already in the fedora repository. This package are the development files for a game engine and are completely unrelated to Bear. However, I can see a potential confusion for users, when bear-devel and bear have nothing in common.
My question is: how should I address this issue? Renaming my proposed package to Build-ear would be an option, but the binary should still be called bear, to avoid confusion for users. Should I ask the upstream author about their opinion concerning renaming?
Thanks in advance,
Dan
"DČ" == Dan Čermák dan.cermak@cgc-instruments.com writes:
DC> I tried to submit the package and during review I was made aware of DČ> the package bear-devel, which is already in the fedora DČ> repository.
Actually the source package name is just "bear", it merely produces bear-devel, bear-engine and bear-factory. So the repository https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bear already exists, and your conflict is more than just an issue with confusion about bear-devel.
DČ> My question is: how should I address this issue? Renaming my DČ> proposed package to Build-ear would be an option, but the binary DČ> should still be called bear, to avoid confusion for users. Should I DČ> ask the upstream author about their opinion concerning renaming?
Fortunately there is nothing in the distribution which provides /usr/bin/bear, so there wouldn't be a problem there.
I could see perhaps persuading the bear maintainer to rename their entire package to "bear-engine" and have "bear-engine-devel" and "bear-engine-factory". Its binaries are "bend-image", "image-cutter" (which itself seems conflict-prone), some things with a "bf-" prefix, and "running-bear". But any conversation about renaming is one you should have with the bear package maintainer.
- J<
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"DČ" == Dan Čermák dan.cermak@cgc-instruments.com writes:
DC> I tried to submit the package and during review I was made aware of DČ> the package bear-devel, which is already in the fedora DČ> repository.
Actually the source package name is just "bear", it merely produces bear-devel, bear-engine and bear-factory. So the repository https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bear already exists, and your conflict is more than just an issue with confusion about bear-devel.
DČ> My question is: how should I address this issue? Renaming my DČ> proposed package to Build-ear would be an option, but the binary DČ> should still be called bear, to avoid confusion for users. Should I DČ> ask the upstream author about their opinion concerning renaming?
Fortunately there is nothing in the distribution which provides /usr/bin/bear, so there wouldn't be a problem there.
I could see perhaps persuading the bear maintainer to rename their entire package to "bear-engine" and have "bear-engine-devel" and "bear-engine-factory". Its binaries are "bend-image", "image-cutter" (which itself seems conflict-prone), some things with a "bf-" prefix, and "running-bear". But any conversation about renaming is one you should have with the bear package maintainer.
This is also not the first time this has come up. There is an (apparently stalled?) movement to rename bear already, see:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/... https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539207
Scott
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Dan Čermák -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Scott Talbert