Re: Best way to solve a file conflict between packages?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 01:04:23PM +0200, David Paleino wrote: I'm *NOT* talking in behalf of the Debian Mono Group, but I really think we shouldn't break existing scripts/programs/workflows/whatever, and call our binary as cli-csc. Hi guys, according to this message and the previous ones posted in this thread, I think we can try to reach a consensus without taking this discussion on -devel. I have the feeling we all agree that best solution right now it's to revert the naming change in the mono-devel package, but I'd like to hear an official statement from the Mono team, is it OK for you guys? I know, it's not the perfect solution, but it's the most near to it, I guess. Thanks in advance. Regards, -- Davide Puricelli, dpurice...@tin.it Debian Developer: e...@debian.org | http://www.debian.org Time looked like snow dropping silently into a black room -- Ray Bradbury pgpuV28IpBOH8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Best way to solve a file conflict between packages?
Hi mentors, I'm asking you help about bug #509367. Summarizing, new mono packages introduced a /usr/bin/csc file that conflicts with /usr/bin/csc I used to ship into chicken-bin, so now there's a conflict between these two packages. I think there're at least three possible ways to fix it: 1) changing the name of my version of /usr/bin/csc to something else, but then I'll have to rename all the references to it in docs, other executables and, last but not the least, users know the Chicken Scheme Compiler as /usr/bin/csc since ages. 2) just putting a Conflicts between mono-devel and chicken-bin, but I think it's not a good solution for users. 3) well, mono-devel came second, they introduced the problem and they should fix it, renaming their file. I'm not a big fan of their my popcon count is bigger than yours, I just know that we're using that name since a lot of time, while probably Mono users would be not so disappointed by a new name. I prefer the solution #3, but I'm not really impartial, I know, so, what do you think? Thanks in advance. Regards, -- Davide Puricelli, dpurice...@tin.it Debian Developer: e...@debian.org | http://www.debian.org Time looked like snow dropping silently into a black room -- Ray Bradbury signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Best way to solve a file conflict between packages?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:08:41PM +0200, Davide Puricelli wrote: I'm asking you help about bug #509367. Summarizing, new mono packages introduced a /usr/bin/csc file that conflicts with /usr/bin/csc I used to ship into chicken-bin, so now there's a conflict between these two packages. I think there're at least three possible ways to fix it: [...] 3) well, mono-devel came second, they introduced the problem and they should fix it, renaming their file. I'm not a big fan of their my popcon count is bigger than yours, I just know that we're using that name since a lot of time, while probably Mono users would be not so disappointed by a new name. I prefer the solution #3, but I'm not really impartial, I know, so, what do you think? I vote for #3 as well. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Best way to solve a file conflict between packages?
Le Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:08:41PM +0200, Davide Puricelli a écrit : Summarizing, new mono packages introduced a /usr/bin/csc file that conflicts with /usr/bin/csc I used to ship into chicken-bin, so now there's a conflict between these two packages. Hello Davide, This is covered by our Policy §10.1: Two different packages must not install programs with different functionality but with the same filenames. (The case of two programs having the same functionality but different implementations is handled via alternatives or the Conflicts mechanism. See Maintainer Scripts, Section 3.9 and Conflicting binary packages - Conflicts, Section 7.4 respectively.) If this case happens, one of the programs must be renamed. The maintainers should report this to the debian-devel mailing list and try to find a consensus about which program will have to be renamed. If a consensus cannot be reached, both programs must be renamed. As proposed earlier in this thread, the package shipping a renamed binary can provide a link using the original name in /usr/lib/package. Then it is easy for users to add /usr/lib/package at the beginning of their PATH environment variable. Nevertheless, this conflict is also an Upstream problem. Maybe you can ask to the Mono Upstreams if they can change their binary name. After all, chosing a three-letter binary name nowardays is looking for problems of this kind… Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Best way to solve a file conflict between packages?
Ciao Davide, On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:08:41 +0200, Davide Puricelli wrote: Summarizing, new mono packages introduced a /usr/bin/csc file that conflicts with /usr/bin/csc I used to ship into chicken-bin, so now there's a conflict between these two packages. I'm a bit biased here, since I'm part of the Debian Mono Team :), but I'll try to make my point. Discussion is _very_ welcome. I think there're at least three possible ways to fix it: 1) changing the name of my version of /usr/bin/csc to something else, but then I'll have to rename all the references to it in docs, other executables and, last but not the least, users know the Chicken Scheme Compiler as /usr/bin/csc since ages. Agreed. And, as seen in the bugreport, using alternatives is not Policy-compliant here. 2) just putting a Conflicts between mono-devel and chicken-bin, but I think it's not a good solution for users. Right, I'm full against it. 3) well, mono-devel came second, they introduced the problem and they should fix it, renaming their file. Point for you. I'm not a big fan of their my popcon count is bigger than yours, I just know that we're using that name since a lot of time, while probably Mono users would be not so disappointed by a new name. The fact is: Mono upstream changes the compiler name according to which runtime version it compiles code to. So we have: mcs - Mono CLI 1.0 gmcs - Mono CLI 2.0 smcs - Mono CLI 3.0 (really 2.1) Now, csc stands for C Sharp Compiler -- it's also used by the .NET framework on Microsoft Windows systems, and is widely recognized in the CLR community. But, well, nothing prevents us from using mono-csc. Yes, that would need another transition on our side (oh, my.), but we wouldn't uselessly need to Conflicts: chicken-bin (thus putting everything mono- and chicken- related into extra), or those hackish approaches proposed in the report. Really, we also called it csc to let people use _other_ CLI compilers (I'm personally working on Portable.NET) through the alternatives mechanism, so that would better be named cli-csc, or similar. I prefer the solution #3, but I'm not really impartial, I know, so, what do you think? I'm *NOT* talking in behalf of the Debian Mono Group, but I really think we shouldn't break existing scripts/programs/workflows/whatever, and call our binary as cli-csc. I'm including pkg-mono-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org in the loop, please keep it. Ciao, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Best way to solve a file conflict between packages?
Hello,
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Davide Puricelli wrote:
I'm asking you help about bug #509367.
As you can imagine similar problems have come-up in the past.
2) just putting a Conflicts between mono-devel and chicken-bin,
but I think it's not a good solution for users.
This is not correct since there is no conflict in the usability
of these two packages on the same system.
3) well, mono-devel came second, they introduced the problem and they
should fix it, renaming their file.
I prefer the solution #3, but I'm not really impartial, I know, so,
what do you think?
I agree with this approach.
In the long run, both maintainers must think about how likely it is
that users will call /usr/bin/csc _by_ _name_ ('csc') in each case. If
this is not too likely, then the binary could equally well be located
somewhere else (like /usr/lib/pkgname/csc for example).
Regards,
Kapil.
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
