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