Re: shouldn't I use update-alternatives for this?
Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
> Yet another thread about cogito-vs-git, sorry folks. Just killfile me
> if I've worn out your patience.
>
>
> Still there? Great!
>
>
> Background: I'm the guy who maintains the cogito package. I had a problem
> a while back because my upstream package wanted to install a program with
> the same name as a program installed by GNU Interactive Tools (git.deb).
> I asked on this list and was told that Conflicting with GNU Interactive
> Tools was wrong, I should rename my upstream's program to avoid the
> collision. I didn't like this suggestion, but I complied with it.
>
>
> Now, after bumbling around the Debian developer docs a little more,
> I found this. Section 3.10 of the Policy Manual states:
>
> <http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#s-maintscripts>
>
> All packages which supply an instance of a common command name (or, in
> general, filename) should generally use update-alternatives, so that
> they may be installed together. If update-alternatives is not used,
> then each package must use Conflicts to ensure that other packages
> are de-installed.
>
>
> Seems like a match to me. git.deb and cogito.deb both supply an
> instance of a common command name (/usr/bin/git). So shouldn't I use
> update-alternatives?
No. Alternatives provide several implementations of similiar
functionality, and allow the user to select the preferred one.
Cogito and git provide _different_ functionality.
Thiemo
Reply to: