[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#9290: addressbook and efax-08a-3 both contain /usr/bin/fax


On Fri, 9 May 1997, Marek Michalkiewicz wrote:

> Hakan Ardo:
> > On Fri, 2 May 1997, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > >   Marek>  Renaming is probably the most reasonable fix.  Rename the files in
> > >   Marek> the package that has fewer users...
> > >
> > > I'm pretty much against that. Efax has been maintained by me since Sep 1995,
> > > and I have really no intention of annoying the users of the package by
> > > breaking usuability like this.
> How about renaming /usr/bin/fax in addressbook then?

That maybe is the best solution after all. "faxnr" for the addressbook
package would be fine for me. But this is a more general problem, and I'll
say we should find a more general solution for it and place it in the
policy manual. Se below for a sugestion.

> > >   Marek> Alternatively, do what the mh package does (put all binaries in
> > >   Marek> their own directory, which must be added by users to their PATH).
> > >
> > > Not very nice either.
> The FHS draft suggests /opt/<package>/bin - how about that?  Now users
> can add the bin directories from packages they use to their PATH.

Oh? Where can I find this FHS?

> > Yet another way could be to rename all the fax binaries to fax.<dpkg-name>
> > or something and provide a symblock link from fax to one of them (user
> > configurable).
> > 
> > For example could the postins script check if the link excits. If not
> > create it for the current package. Otherwise ask the user if he want it
> > changed.
> This is done for the various versions of vi (elvis, nvi, vim).  This
> makes sense because all these binaries have similar functionality
> ("vi"-like editor).  But the "fax" command does something completely
> different in the addressbook and efax packages.  Imagine the resulting
> confusion on a multi-user system (some users want to use the "fax"
> command from efax, and others from addressbook). 

True, it would be preferable if the selection where done at the user level
instead of at the administrator level.

> This problem is more general - as more packages are added, there will
> be more such namespace conflicts.  The use of /opt for anything that
> is not the "core system" looks like a good idea to me.  Other UN*X

Well, there is currently a little less than 1000 debian packages availible
among which about 50 is in the Base section, and having 900
/opt/<package>/bin in my path does not seem like a smoot solution. Besides
there will arise problems when you are installing new packages and needs
to update the path of every user...

A better solution would be to only use a combination of the two. Keep efax
the way it is as we consider it the most used package. Then we could
rename the addressbook executable /usr/bin/fax to
/usr/bin/fax-addressbook, and let that package also contain a symbolic
link /opt/addressbook/bin/fax pointing to /usr/bin/fax-addressbook. 

This way users wanting something other than the default efax command could
add /opt/addressbook/bin/ to there paths before /usr/bin, or they could
use fax-addressbook instead to make there own aliases or for a onetime

- ---------------------------------------------------------------
 Name:        Hakan Ardo
 E-Mail:      hakan@debian.org
 WWW:         http://www.ub2.lu.se/~hakan/sig.html
 Public Key:  Try "finger hakan@master.debian.org"
 Fingerprint: E9 81 FD 90 53 5C E9 3E  3D ED 57 15 1B 7E 29 F3
 Interests:   WWW, Programming, 3D graphics

 Thought for the day: As long as one understands, the
 spelling does not matter :-)
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv


TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: