Re: Transition from dpkg to GNU install-info
Hi,
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Actually, if called with an absolute path, the warning should ask the
> caller to not use such absolute path (maybe as a side note, explain
> the rationale, because it's generally wrong, and in this case because
> it will stop working if using /usr/sbin/).
Fine.
> > > . if called and there is no /usr/bin/install-info give a big fat
> > > warning and die. Or?
> >
> > Dying is not really an option. It might be legitimate that
> > /usr/bin/install-info is not here: because no info reader is installed.
>
> Right. Also I guess when warning we want to distinguish here the case
> a maintainer script is calling us, which then we want to explain that
> they should stop doing so, as this is handled by triggers now. And the
> case a user is calling us which we'd recommend them installing at least
> the install-info package and maybe an info-browser. Otherwise as there's
> no /usr/bin/install-info we'll not be able to give accurate info.
I can add print this additionnal information in case there's no
/urs/bin/install-info and we have DPKG_RUNNING_VERSION set.
If we have /urs/bin/install-info, it will take care of printing the
message for us.
> > Note: if we really wanted, we could avoid that intermediary wrapper and
> > have it in dpkg but that would mean that the "install-info" interface is
> > deprecated and that user are expected to use ginstall-info in the long
> > term.
>
> Well, I don't see why that'd be the case. The install-info package
> can always reclaim the correct path name in the future once we drop
> the wrapper from dpkg.
We want to avoid to have to coordinate once more for the final move.
It's best to avoid a system with install-info installed but without
install-info binary because dpkg was upgraded to a version that doesn't
provide it.
IOW, depending on install-info should be enough to ensure that
install-info exists in $PATH. This can only be true if /usr/bin/install-info is
part of install-info right from the beginning unless we want to add a
Breaks: install-info (< first-version-with-usr-bin-install-info) once
we remove the wrapper from dpkg.
I prefer to avoid the supplementary Breaks and handle everything now
without having to remember that we should add the Breaks once we remove
the wrapper.
What do you think ?
> Anyway I think I'd prefer only one install-info in /usr/sbin/, but would
> not mind the other one in /usr/bin/. In the latter case both should be
> mostly identical IMO, either hardlinks in dpkg, or the same source
> code duped in both packages (dpkg and install-info).
As long as the one in /usr/sbin/ always ends up calling the one in
/usr/bin I don't see what the problem is.
Having two different behaviour depending on the order in PATH would be
bad, but here we have a single behaviour since the one in /usr/bin gets to
dictate what's done and the other one is a wrapper. The fact that
the install-info package decided to make it a wrapper too (as opposed to
"patch ginstall-info to have the desired behaviour") should not change
anything from our point of view.
A new version of the patch is in my branch, it should fix all the points you
have brought up (except the common wrapper thing):
http://git.debian.org/?p=users/hertzog/dpkg.git;a=commitdiff;hb=pu/install-info
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny :
http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/
Reply to: