Re: Accepted ebook-tools 0.2.2-5 (source) into unstable
- To: Pino Toscano <pino@debian.org>
- Cc: debian-med@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Accepted ebook-tools 0.2.2-5 (source) into unstable
- From: ucko@debian.org (Aaron M. Ucko)
- Date: Sun, 29 May 2022 13:06:34 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] udl1qwce09x.fsf@mit.edu>
- In-reply-to: <E1nvIaA-000Gmf-MF@fasolo.debian.org> (Debian FTP Masters's message of "Sun, 29 May 2022 13:03:46 +0000")
- References: <E1nvIaA-000Gmf-MF@fasolo.debian.org>
Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org> writes:
> * Make epub-utils conflict with ncbi-entrez-direct, as both ship the einfo
> executable & manpage.
I appreciate the thought, but ncbi-entrez-direct goes out of its way to
avoid any such conflict: it diverts epub-utils' instances of those
files, substituting a wrapper script that takes advantage of major
command-line syntax differences to determine which tool the user
presumably meant to run (and a manpage that notes the diversion).
AFAICT, this arrangement works fine; have you found otherwise?
FTR, there's a similar situation around efetch, where both executables
come from biology-related packages where a conflict would be more of a
problem: acedb-other and ncbi-entrez-direct (with the latter taking care
of deconflicting in the same fashion).
--
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org)
http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?amu@monk.mit.edu
Reply to: