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

Re: Color-ls package

On Sat, 16 Mar 1996, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think that, given how badly designed colour-ls is, it should be done
> in a separate package and should not replace the standard /bin/ls even
> if you install it.  After all, given that dircolors is spouting stuff
> to make aliases anyway it might as well include a path to the modifies
> ls.

Fine. So I make a package which includes ls and dircolors in /usr/local/bin.
It also adds the dircolors manpage and places a (renamed) config file for
dircolors in /usr/local/etc.  This is fine if people want to have extra
binaries rather than alternate binaries.  

> You should certainly not release modified versions of other packages
> and change only the version number; especially with fileutils (an
> Essential package)

Slackware uses the patched version of the fileutils exclusively.  I have
not heard of any functional problems, just aesthetic.  However, in the
interest of peace and to get the thing released before the turn of the
century, I want to sum up this debate soon.  As of now, I've got the
patched version of the fileutils essentially ready.  I will work on the
two-binary package as well, and I'll leave it up to the rest of you to
decide which is best.  I agree that if the package only adds the two
files, it must not replace any of the filutils binaries.

Syrus Nemat-Nasser <syrus@ucsd.edu>    UCSD Physics Dept.

Reply to: