Re: Intention to re-write /usr/sbin/install-info
Brandon Mitchell <email@example.com> writes:
>If install-info have a different interface with the same name, we should
>change it. However, an immediate change would probably upset some people.
>Instead, move debian's install-info to dinstall-info and make a script
>where /usr/sbin/install-info was:
>echo "This is debian's install-info, which is now called dinstall-info."
>echo "The normal install-info is in /usr/bin. This script will fall back"
>echo "on debian's install-info. Please make any necessary changes so you"
>echo "don't see this warning since this forward will be removed in the"
This strikes me as a bad idea. The sysadmin gets a warning and a ten
second wait for every package he installs that uses install-info.
(That's worse than the tetex package check, because there are many
more packages that install info pages.) Also, the warning does not
tell him what to change.
Why are there two versions, anyway? Was FSF unaware of our version
when they wrote theirs, or did theirs come first? I think a single
program should be written which includes the functionality of both the
Debian and gnu versions of install-info. Debian should distribute the
combined program. If possible, we should pursuade FSF to distribute
If we have to maintain independent, incompatible installers, then I
agree we should change the name of ours. In that case, deb-make,
debstd, deblint, and/or Guy's package acceptance scripts on master
should enforce use of the new name. Both names should stay valid
(with no warnings to the sysadmin) until most of the packages are
updated to use the new name.
- Jim Van Zandt
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .