Ciao Davide, On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:08:41 +0200, Davide Puricelli wrote: > Summarizing, new mono packages introduced a /usr/bin/csc file that > conflicts with /usr/bin/csc I used to ship into chicken-bin, so now > there's a conflict between these two packages. I'm a bit biased here, since I'm part of the Debian Mono Team :), but I'll try to make my point. Discussion is _very_ welcome. > I think there're at least three possible ways to fix it: > > 1) changing the name of my version of /usr/bin/csc to something else, > but then I'll have to rename all the references to it in docs, other > executables and, last but not the least, users know the Chicken Scheme > Compiler as /usr/bin/csc since ages. Agreed. And, as seen in the bugreport, using alternatives is not Policy-compliant here. > 2) just putting a Conflicts between mono-devel and chicken-bin, > but I think it's not a good solution for users. Right, I'm full against it. > 3) well, mono-devel came second, they introduced the problem and they > should fix it, renaming their file. Point for you. > I'm not a big fan of their "my popcon count is bigger than yours", I > just know that we're using that name since a lot of time, while probably > Mono users would be not so disappointed by a new name. The fact is: Mono upstream changes the compiler name according to which runtime version it compiles code to. So we have: mcs - Mono CLI 1.0 gmcs - Mono CLI 2.0 smcs - Mono CLI 3.0 (really 2.1) Now, "csc" stands for "C Sharp Compiler" -- it's also used by the .NET framework on Microsoft Windows systems, and is widely recognized in the CLR community. But, well, nothing prevents us from using "mono-csc". Yes, that would need another transition on our side (oh, my.), but we wouldn't uselessly need to Conflicts: chicken-bin (thus putting everything mono- and chicken- related into "extra"), or those hackish approaches proposed in the report. Really, we also called it "csc" to let people use _other_ CLI compilers (I'm personally working on Portable.NET) through the alternatives mechanism, so that would better be named cli-csc, or similar. > I prefer the solution #3, but I'm not really impartial, I know, so, > what do you think? I'm *NOT* talking in behalf of the Debian Mono Group, but I really think we shouldn't break existing scripts/programs/workflows/whatever, and call our binary as cli-csc. I'm including pkg-mono-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org in the loop, please keep it. Ciao, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature