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

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.


Reply to: