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

Re: The "node" command in Debian

brian m. carlson writes ("Re: The "node" command in Debian"):
> The definition of "filename" here is unclear.  AX.25's node is in
> /usr/sbin (IIRC) and nodejs's is in /usr/bin.  This, of course, poses
> practical problems for people that have both in their path.  This is
> usually the case for root, and for some users as well.


> Lacking an official definition for "filename" in Policy, I think it's
> reasonable to assume that it should not be read as "path", and instead
> be read to forbid this use (as you said, Ian).  Nevertheless, I see how
> reasonable people could disagree.

The point of the exercise is not just to stop dpkg complaining when
the packages are installed (otherwise Conflicts would suffice).

The point is to try to arrange that when one bit of the system (or a
user) asks for something by name, they don't get something entirely

The same principle should apply to any namespace, not just the command
namespace.  So for example we would not tolerate a new kernel module
that used AF_INET for something strange, nor two applications which
used the same object paths in dbus for unrelated purposes, nor two
sets of packages which use the same virtual package name for unrelated
purposes, or anything else similar.

Nor should we accept two sets of shared libraries which exported the
same function names for different purposes (although I guess we don't
check for this automatically, and there would probably be more cases
where it would be easier to argue that there was no harm done).


Reply to: