On 06/04/2011 09:17 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 07:29:02AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: >>> ----------------------------- >>> Details - Control File Syntax >>> ----------------------------- >>> It will conform to RFC2822 style with the following format: >>> * Divert-From: >>> * Divert-To: >>> * Blank lines and lines beginning with '#' will be comments >>> >>> 'Divert-To' will be optional and if it is ommitted then files being >>> diverted >>> will have their filename changed to 'file.distrib' > >> Would it not be better to have the filename changed to >> 'file.<package_name>' if 'Divert-To' is not specified, so it's possible >> to support more packages diverting the same file? > > If you do that, how do you keep track of which package's file was diverted > where, so that on *removal*, the files are put where they belong?
Indeed. > Why do you *want* to have parallel diversions of the same file by more than > one package? It may seem the answer is obvious, but if you think about it I > believe you'll find those semantics aren't actually useful. *Nested* > diversions can be useful (one package diverts foo to foo.distrib and wraps > it; another package diverts foo.distrib to foo.distrib.distrib and wraps it > again), but having two diversions happen in parallel, where the unpack order > determines which package ends up on top, isn't useful at all. Because people want to have both atomic changes of their /bin/sh as well as being able to choose between more than 2 options for their /bin/sh ... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
