alsa vs bacula

[Jakub Bogusz]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 08:01:41PM +0100, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> On 2016-01-22 17:59, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> >         file /usr/bin/bat from install of alsa-utils-1.1.0-1.x86_64
> > conflicts with file from package bacula-console-qt-5.2.13-4.x86_64
> >         file /usr/share/man/man1/bat.1.gz from install of
> > alsa-utils-1.1.0-1.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
> > bacula-console-qt-5.2.13-4.x86_64
> 
> I have noticed that too.
> 
> The 'bat' from ALSA is a test tool, the one from bacula is an end user
> application. Also, we have had Bacula's BAT in PLD longer, so I think
> ALSA side should be 'fixed'.
> 
> I can see two options:
> - separate ALSA bat into a new package. Still conflicting, but a chance
> that someone would need ALSA bat and Bacula bat at the same time are small
> - rename the ALSA utility ? it will be a bit more difficult to find it,
> when someone expects 'bat', but there would be no conflict any more.

I propose renaming alsa's bat to alsa-bat.

The others:
Fedora uses alsa-utils-bat subpackage.
Debian doesn't have ALSA 1.1.0 yet.


-- 
Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/