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

Re: appropriate use of /etc/alternatives

On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 02:29:42PM -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> I intend to package the xplot utility from xplot.org.  This tool is
> useful with the tcptrace package, which I maintain.  However, there's
> already an xplot package that installs /usr/bin/xplot.  It's not
> compatible with xplot.org, but does essentially the same thing (plots
> data in X).
> I suggested to the xplot maintainer, Peter Galbraith, that we use
> /etc/alternatives to manage a /usr/bin/xplot symlink.  He doesn't think
> that it's an appropriate use of alternatives, since the tools are not
> compatible.  Do others agree?  On what level do tools need to be
> compatible in order to go into alternatives?  I'm sure there are a
> number of examples of alternatives that are incompatible on at least
> some level (think nvi and vim config files, for example), but they do
> essentially the same thing.

I agree. A user should not have to concern themselves about which one
they are using. If the command name is the same, they better support the
same functionality.

Sounds to me like you don't even want to call the package just xplot, to
avoid confusion. Maybe xplot-ng? :)

Debian     - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo       - http://www.deqo.com/

Reply to: