Re: Bug#1134655: ITP: forge -- Go library and CLI for working with git forges. Supports GitHub, GitLab, Gitea/Forgejo, and Bitbucket Cloud through a single interface.

Sean Whitton <[email protected]> Tue, 28 Apr 2026 10:14:32 +0100

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.general
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Simon Josefsson [28/Apr  8:54am +02] wrote:
>>> I think shipping /usr/bin/forge with a Conflicts:snap (which also
>>> provides /usr/bin/forge) in a binary package 'forge' would be
>>> acceptable.  Any objections?
>>
>> Yeah, I'm afraid this is not acceptable (see Debian Policy §10.1),
>> neither for the binary package name nor the program name.
>
> Is it this part you mean?
>
>     Two different packages must not install programs with different
>     functionality but with the same filenames. This also applies when
>     they are installed into different directories on the default (user
>     or root) PATH. (The case of two programs having the same
>     functionality but different implementations is handled via
>     “alternatives” or the “Conflicts” mechanism. See Maintainer Scripts
>     and Conflicting binary packages - Conflicts respectively.) If this
>     case happens, one of the programs must be renamed. The maintainers
>     should report this to the debian-devel mailing list and try to find
>     a consensus about which program will have to be renamed. If a
>     consensus cannot be reached, both programs must be renamed.
>
> I'm not sure how important the /usr/bin/forge tool from the 'snap'
> package is, and if it is possible to rename that, and asked upstream
> about it:
>
> https://github.com/KorfLab/SNAP/issues/24
>
> Solving that wouldn't really solve the problem with the git-pkg-forge
> package using a generic name, but it may improve things anyway.  The
> same arguments about /usr/bin/forge appears to be true for the existing
> 'snap' package too, unless I'm missing something.

snap doesn't actually install /usr/bin/forge, right?  It can just be
used to install a snap which occupies /usr/bin/forge?

In that case it's not clear that Policy cleanly applies but I would be
in favour of interpreting Policy broadly here.

-- 
Sean Whitton

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 869 B)