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

Re: Duplicate file names? (was Re: RFS: ifstat (updated package))




On Aug 14, 2007, at 7:43 PM, The Fungi wrote:

On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 07:30:41PM -0400, Robert James Clay wrote:
Would I be correct in thinking that it is a bug for files of the
same name to come from different packages?

For data files, I don't mind so much; but I've always been leery of having different program files with the same name on the same system... But I gather it isn't necessarily a bug? (Don't recall anyhting in policy about it, but then I'm still learning that...)


I ask because there is
another "ifstat" file in Debian; it's from the ifcico package &
gets installed in a different directory. There is also an issue
with the man page; I was thinking of doing a man page for the
ifcico ifstat program (there doesn't seem to be one) but the other
ifstat does install one...

The ifstat package provides /usr/bin/ifstat and the ifcico package
provides /usr/lib/ifmail/ifstat so I wouldn't expect a conflict
there

True; except that /usr/bin is more likely to be in the $PATH than /usr/lib/ifmail... (Unless a particular user account is used specifically for the ifcico & similar programs, in which case the $PATH could be adjusted for that ...)


(as long as anything needing the executable from ifcico has
that path hard-coded or pre-empting /usr/bin as necessary).

When I use programs in scripts, I usually include the path for whatever executables I'm using. Don't normally do that when I use a program from the command line...



The
manpage for the former is in section 1 and the manpage for the
latter would go in section 8 if consistent with the manpages for the
other stuff in /usr/lib/ifmail, so again no conflict (though users
with both installed will need to specify 'man 8 ifstat' to see the
one from ifcico).
--

Ah, yes; I overlooked that aspect of it; so I'll likely go ahead & write up a man page for it (ifstat in ifcico package).




Robert James Clay
jame@rocasa.org





Reply to: