Your message dated Tue, 18 Sep 2018 17:42:52 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#909097: fdclone: Please drop /usr/bin/fd in favor or
/usr/bin/fdsh
has caused the Debian Bug report #909097,
regarding fdclone: Please drop /usr/bin/fd in favor or /usr/bin/fdsh
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
909097: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=909097
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: fdclone
Version: 3.01e-1+b1
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: [email protected]
Dear Elías Alejandro Año Mendoza,
fdclone currently installs two files in /usr/bin:
/usr/bin/fd
/usr/bin/fdsh -> /usr/bin/fd
fdsh is a symlink to fd. The files serve the same purpose, and upstream
normally installs them as hard links. The same goes for the fd(1) and
fdsh(1) manpages, but the contents manpage actually refers to 'fdsh', so
this is probably the name upstream prefers.
Coming to the point. I am working at the packaging of fd-find [0], which
is normally installed as /usr/bin/fd. This clashes with fdclone, as
according the the Policy [1] "Two different packages must not install
programs with different functionality but with the same filenames". If
this happens, one program of both programs must be renamed.
What I'm asking you is: would you agree to drop the /usr/bin/fd binary
and the associated manpage, keeping only the 'fdsh' name, which appears
to be the name upstream favors for this program?
In practice this translates in changing the following lines in d/rules:
rm -f $(PKGDIR)/usr/bin/fdsh
cd $(PKGDIR)/usr/bin && ln -s fd fdsh
with something like (not tested):
rm -fv $(PKGDIR)/usr/bin/fd
rm -fv $(PKGDIR)/usr/share/man/*/fd.*
rm -fv $(PKGDIR)/usr/share/man/*/*/fd.*
(This request comes after a long thread in debian-devel discussing how
to deal with such conflicts [2]. TLDR: the policy stands, so when a
conflict happens we have to proceed with a rename or change the file
installation path.)
Thank you,
Paride
[0] https://github.com/sharkdp/fd
[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#binaries
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/09/msg00034.html
(and following)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Adrian Bunk wrote on 18/09/2018:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 03:07:32PM +0200, Paride Legovini wrote:
>> fdclone currently installs two files in /usr/bin:
>>
>> /usr/bin/fd
>> /usr/bin/fdsh -> /usr/bin/fd
>>
>> fdsh is a symlink to fd. The files serve the same purpose, and upstream
>> normally installs them as hard links. The same goes for the fd(1) and
>> fdsh(1) manpages, but the contents manpage actually refers to 'fdsh', so
>> this is probably the name upstream prefers.
>
> 'fd' and 'fdsh' are different programs in the same binary.
>
> Removing one link removes a program, not an alias.
Thanks Adrian: I didn't realize this was the case. The fact that the
manpages are identical and do not mention the difference didn't help.
I guess this pretty much settles the issue: /usr/bin/fdfind will be (I
prefer it without the hyphen).
Paride
--- End Message ---
