Re: Transition from dpkg to GNU install-info
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 12:34:51 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I can add print this additionnal information in case there's no
> /urs/bin/install-info and we have DPKG_RUNNING_VERSION set.
Checking now the new warning, it might also make sense to print the
package involved from DPKG_MAINTSCRIPT_PACKAGE so the message is more
> If we have /urs/bin/install-info, it will take care of printing the
> message for us.
> We want to avoid to have to coordinate once more for the final move.
> It's best to avoid a system with install-info installed but without
> install-info binary because dpkg was upgraded to a version that doesn't
> provide it.
> IOW, depending on install-info should be enough to ensure that
> install-info exists in $PATH. This can only be true if /usr/bin/install-info is
> part of install-info right from the beginning unless we want to add a
> Breaks: install-info (< first-version-with-usr-bin-install-info) once
> we remove the wrapper from dpkg.
> I prefer to avoid the supplementary Breaks and handle everything now
> without having to remember that we should add the Breaks once we remove
> the wrapper.
> What do you think ?
Given the size of the transition this is going to be a small pain
compared to the total, but yes, you are right, I guess it makes more
> As long as the one in /usr/sbin/ always ends up calling the one in
> /usr/bin I don't see what the problem is.
> Having two different behaviour depending on the order in PATH would be
> bad, but here we have a single behaviour since the one in /usr/bin gets to
> dictate what's done and the other one is a wrapper. The fact that
> the install-info package decided to make it a wrapper too (as opposed to
> "patch ginstall-info to have the desired behaviour") should not change
> anything from our point of view.
> A new version of the patch is in my branch, it should fix all the points you
> have brought up (except the common wrapper thing):
I was going to give some comments, but then I thought it was going to
be easier with code, so here it is
this way it might be possible to reuse this as the wrapper for the