X-Debbugs-CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Debbugs-CC: Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Jordi Mallach wrote:
I think diverting is probably not the correct solution to this problem.
We should use alternatives for the pico binary, with alpine providing a
higher priority than nano's.
Agreed. As I understand the alternatives system, this requires you guys
to change the nano package as well. So I'll wait for you guys to update
nano to provide pico as e.g. /usr/bin/pico.nano and set up the
alternatives hooks. Then I'll make my pico package conflict with versions
of nano less than that one.
Regarding the binary name, I think it shouldn't be renamed. I don't know
what you mean with "the fact that it's part of the alpine source package
is irrelevant". There is a source package in Debian which builds a
"pine" package (not by default, due to licensing reasons). If you rename
alpine-pico to pico, there'll be two different "pico" binaries with
different version numbers and source, even if the "real" one isn't in
the binary archive.
Since the pine package no longer builds a pico package, it should be
okay to rename it to "pico", yes?
Thanks!
-- Asheesh.
--
If people concentrated on the really important things in life,
there'd be a shortage of fishing poles.
-- Doug Larson
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
