On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:12 AM, James Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Would neon would be better served by an auxiliary flag (see ld(1)). >[...] > > > This has the effect that when anything looks for libneon.so it will > get libneon-full.so if it exists otherwise just it gets libneon.so > >
James makes an interesting point, both for neon specifically, but for "alternatives" in general. There are multiple cases where we are proposing using the "alternatives" set of utils for packages: 1. Where there is truely different functionality available, and user has to choose either/or. Examples: tcpwrappers libs, and the "ncurses or slang back end" for mutt. 2. Where there is optionally "enhanced" functionality. In which case, we allow for "alternatives", mostly to save on download footprint, and dependancy footprint. [are there any other cases?] For categories that fit #2, if there is a clean "use libxxxx-full if installed" option, it seems like the auxiliary linking flag is probably the better way to go in most cases. As such, perhaps we should both update the neon package like that, and also update our "alternatives" documentation, to explicitly redirect the maintainer to this path when it is appropriate? _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
