On 08/01/23 20:59 +1100, Hamish Moffatt said ... > On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 02:07:57PM +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote: > > Beginning elinks 0.11.3-2, the elinks and elinks-lite binary packages > > don't "Provides: links" anymore (See bug #154859 and Debian ELinks GIT > > commit a885ecead29f808310e6c2908f59f59a8d69b3ac). The links alternative > > isn't installed. > > Wouldn't have providing a links executable been a better solution? The codebase, functionality and CLI options for links and elinks are fast diverging, so calling elinks as links and considering elinks as a links alternative (in the Debian sense) is probably not fair. If a links executable were provided, we should conflict with the links package. > It would have solved the bug but also not broken those other packages. Even though I did not build or test any of those packages, I have a feeling it would not be a very bad breakage, and I am hoping I did not screw up very badly. But there would be users that use elinks as links because of the alternative it used to install. I will: - Document this change in README.Debian - Have elinks install a /usr/bin/links script indicating this change to the user and co-ordinate with the links maintainer for a dpkg-divert. Does that sound reasonable? Cheers, Giridhar -- Y Giridhar Appaji Nag | http://www.appaji.net/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature