Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

brew package conflict with PCP - Perfomance CoPilot #17

Open
ciphernaut opened this issue Nov 26, 2021 · 14 comments
Open

brew package conflict with PCP - Perfomance CoPilot #17

ciphernaut opened this issue Nov 26, 2021 · 14 comments

Comments

@ciphernaut
Copy link

the package entry in brew conflicts with Performance CoPilot.

See https://github.com/performancecopilot/pcp/blob/main/INSTALL.md "section 2. Mac OS X Installation" for more information.

@ciphernaut ciphernaut changed the title brew pcakage conflict with PCP - Perfomance CoPilot brew package conflict with PCP - Perfomance CoPilot Nov 26, 2021
@natoscott
Copy link

This is unfortunate - the package name conflict is going to exist on all Linux distributions as well, where the other PCP has been around for some 20+ years.

@ciphernaut
Copy link
Author

ciphernaut commented Nov 26, 2021

Seems to be an issue with other package managers as well as per #11

@dennis-tra
Copy link
Owner

dennis-tra commented Nov 26, 2021

Hey hey, yup this is really unfortunate because I actually liked the name. I hope this has not caused a lot of trouble on your side as managing dependencies can often be a pain. I have not yet come around to actually changing it - if the only alternative is a change in the name my current favorite alternative would be peercp as suggested by @AmberCronin in the other issue.

Would you know another sensible way forward that would not require a change in the name? If not, would you have other naming suggestions?

@ciphernaut
Copy link
Author

I am not familiar enough with the brew landscape to comment on how to achieve that.

'peercp' does appear that it would alleviate namespace clashes via brew and other in other packaging formats such as rpm.

@natoscott
Copy link

regarding rpms, this is the official advice for handling package name clashes in Fedora - and hence CentOS/RHEL, as downstream projects:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Conflicting_Package_Names

@decentral1se
Copy link

go-pcp on the distro side? pcp is a rad name.

@safeercm
Copy link

Hi Dennis, I second the name peercp, is it possible to change the name?

Thanks

@dhalucario
Copy link

Hi, I'd like to propose "pcpft"
pcp => peer copy
ft => file transfer

In my opinion that makes it easier to remember the name since thats what you wanna do.

@dennis-tra
Copy link
Owner

I am (with the help of @optman 👏) preparing a new version that will support decentralized hole punching. This will probably/hopefully vastly improve transfer speeds as two peers in their home networks will be able to directly connect to each other (as opposed to routing the traffic through a relay). Before releasing this new version I'll figure out a solution for this naming clash 👍

@natoscott
Copy link

@dennis-tra thanks!!!

@natoscott
Copy link

@dennis-tra hi - any news on this one? We have folks working on updating the pcp.io Mac port and they'll no doubt encounter this issue in the weeks ahead. Many thanks!

@safeercm
Copy link

@dennis-tra any traction on this? a resolution on this would really help. Thanks in advance!

@q9f
Copy link

q9f commented Nov 21, 2023

Hi Dennis, thank you for your talk at libp2p day.

What about p2cp? :)

@pierre-rouleau
Copy link

Hi, is there any movement on this? Are you planning to change the name or continue to hijack Performance Co-Pilot's one?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants