Re: Using update-alternatives for /usr/bin provided binaries

[Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
> If we have update-alternatives, then it's very easy for a maintainer to
> choose which one of the 2 implementation it wants:
>
> Build-Depends: python-coverage
> Build-Conflicts: python3-coverage
>
> if you need /usr/bin/coverage to be python-coverage, or:
>
> Build-Depends: python3-coverage
> Build-Conflicts: python-coverage

This looks wrong to me. If these programs are incompatible (i.e.
provide different outputs), then this is a bug. Otherwise, there
should be no need in Build-Conflicts.

> if you want /usr/bin/coverage to be the python3-coverage implementation.
> That's easy enough. Also, with priorities like I wished to set,
> python-coverage (eg: Python 2) was the preferred implementation.

I think our goal is to switch as many modules to Python 3 as we can,
so I don't see any point in giving python-coverage a bigger priority.

--
Dmitry Shachnev