Re: Intent to adopt: info
Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 11:35:59PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > > Which leads into making /usr/bin/info maintained by
> > > > update-alternatives and some emacs packages providing info
> > > > scripts.
> > >
> > > Which is ugly. I think we should leave the original info binary
> > > untouched and use a name as "showinfo" or "infopage" to request a
> > > specific page. This binary could be maintained in
> > > /etc/alternatives
> >
> > Why?
>
> If for example info is installed, was happens if you install a new
> pinfo which registers itself as alternative with update-alternatives?
> I see 2 possibilities:
> 1. update-alternatives overwrite /usr/bin/info with a link
> 2. it fails without a sensible config of info. E.g. we have a binary
> "info" in /usr/bin, and a link in /etc/alternatives, but the link is
> unused..
update-alternatives will fail but record. When the new info provides
a prober info.orig or info.info binary and uses alternatives itself
everything will be fine.
> We could solve this by releasing a new version of info, but then any new
> info browser has to conflict with the old info.
Why that? From what I saw update-alternatives will record the settings
even if it cannot set the proper link. But in that case there is an
info binary so we don't have to worry about it.
Regards,
Joey
PS: I might be too tired to understand this situation now.
--
All language designers are arrogant. Goes with the territory...
-- Larry Wall
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Reply to: