Re: Intention to re-write /usr/sbin/install-info
On Mon, 1 Sep 1997, James R. Van Zandt wrote:
> 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"
> >echo "future."
> >sleep 10
> 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
> it too.
I agree that if we can combine them, let's do it. But it has to be in
such a way that the interface works for both versions. Otherwise, we have
an incompatable program again.
> 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.
I agree with your complaints about this, so lets see if something can be
1) I believe dinstall-info and install-info have different interfaces, but
I'm not sure what is better. Apparently, installing non-debian
packages will result in problems because of our install-info. I don't
know who came first.
2) dinstall-info should added immediately, with /usr/sbin/install-info
symlinked to it.
3) Debian packages should now use dinstall-info (we can give them, say a
4) Once the month is up, put in the install-info warning I have above.
The message can be changed. The 10 seconds was to give the user enough
time to write down the package name for a bug report. An experienced
sys adm can change or remove the script. If they are installing
non-debian packages, they will probably want to point it to
I personally thought the message was descriptive enough. What would you
change? Have I answered all your complaints?
Brandon Mitchell E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
PGP: finger -l email@example.com
"We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds."
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .