On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 16:48:18 -0300, Pablo Lorenzzoni wrote: > Hello ALL, > > I took over packaging for Conquest DICOM Server a few months ago (bug > #680352) and I am approaching upload state. You can check my work in Debian > Git [1]. > > Since the shortest form of the package name would be "conquest" and I'll have > to spin off several bin packages from the source (such as conquest-sqlite, > conquest-postgres, conquest-mysql), I think sticking to the shortest possible > name to be important. The problem is that the archive already have a package > named "conquest", which seems to be dead, according to the QA system [2]. But > it's forcing me to call the package "conquest-dicom-server"... you can > imagine the derivatives coming from that (conquest-dicom-server-postgres, > etc)... > > How should I proceed? > There's no reason the binary packages can't be named conquest-postgres and conquest-mysql even if the source is conquest-dicom-server. And the source package name is mostly user-invisible. A shorter name is very much not a better one. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature