reopen 313605
thanks
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 04:19:20PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 10:57 -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
dpkg has made the md5sum.textutils binary from the coreutils binary
unavailable in its original path. A package must not remove files from
another package.
It's diverting it, not removing it.
No, it's removing it. There is no /usr/bin/md5sum.textutils once the
buggy version of dpkg is installed. A diversion should be used when a
package wants to install a different copy of an existing binary, not to
make an existing binary unavailable. I don't want md5sum.textutils to
go away, regardless of whether coreutils provides /usr/bin/md5sum.
In addition, where are you getting this "must not" directive from,
other than out of your arse?
Common sense? How 'bout I rename /usr/bin/dpkg to
/usr/bin/dpkg.coreutilsrules on my next upload? Apparantly that would be
fine by your logic as long as I use a diversion? You may think it's cool
to break things, but there's a difference between breakage caused by
development bugs and breakage caused by an overly cavalier attitude. I
don't think its unreasonable to expect an essential base package to be
handled with a reasonable amount of deliberation.
dpkg did this by placing a local diversion. This local diversion does not
(by definition) have an association with a debian package, so it is
indistinguishable from an actual local diverison
(created by the local administrator).
This is a common practice, there are many packages that do just this.
Well, if I find another package doing it I'll file a bug on that one
also. dpkg is the only package on my system at the moment with this bug.
Mike Stone
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
