Re: shouldn't I use update-alternatives for this?
Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com> wrote:
> [Marco d'Itri]
> > Reality? git is the kernel SCM and GNU Interactive Tools is an
> > obscure package, and you should just install /usr/bin/git.
> > If the GNU Interactive Tools maintainer refuses to rename the other
> > program then just conflict with it.
>
> Ah, conflict resolution by the use of force. The method seem to gain
> popularity in the world today, but I do not recommend it.
>
> It is is not obvious which tool is more obscure, as this will differ
> from user group to user group. It is a better idea for the
> maintainers to try to reach an agreement, and perhaps to discuss the
> choice of name with upstream as well, to try to make the choosen name
> used in other distros.
The "just conflict" idea is what I naively did first, and got flamed
right here on debian-devel. [1]
I've pushed the "rename it upstream" idea on the upstream maintainers
twice now and it gets shut down by both Linus (the original author)
and Junio (the current maintainer). [2]
update-alternatives seems like it would work but it's apparently not
supposed to used unless the programs that share a name also do the
same thing.
Qingning Huo suggested using diversions to make /usr/bin/git a little
selector script that lets the admin & user choose between git-the-shell
and git-the-scm. This sounds good to me, who objects?
[1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg00909.html
[2]: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git&m=112371729330066&w=2
--
Sebastian Kuzminsky
Reply to: