retitle 638383 links/links2 package roadmap: update-alternatives and further 
splitting up
kthxbye

More braindump...

Axel Beckert wrote:
> Package: links
> Version: 2.3-1
> Severity: wishlist
> 
> elinks provides itself as alternative for /usr/bin/links. If elinks but
> not links is installed /usr/bin/links is always elinks. If both are
> installed, /usr/bin/links is always links because the package installs
> its binary there and update-alternatives no more works at that location:

We also should take care about the RFP for getting links1 (the web
browser from which links2 and IIRC also elinks were forked from) back
into Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/509469

Another issue which tangents this is splitting up links2 into more
than two packages. See also the following bug reports:

* http://bugs.debian.org/322995 (links2: change libdirectfb-*,
  libsvga1 and libx11-6 | xlibs dependencies to Recommends)
* https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/289752 (excessive dependencies on
  links2)
* https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/234717 (Links browser requires suid
  in VGA mode)

Not that I want to follow all that suggestions as they were thought,
but the general idea of splitting links2 up in further packages should
solve most of these issues in some war.

I think at least the following packages would make sense:

  links2 (all stuff compiled in, not suid by default, but optional)
  links2-text (current links package, i.e. text-mode only)
  links2-vga (VGA + text-mode, suid by default)
  links2-directfb (framebuffer + text-mode)

Then there are two variants which would target different user groups:

  links2-x11 (Just X and text-mode as they're probably the most-used
              combination)

  links2-vga-directfb (All but X to not pull in X dependencies on
                       console-only systems, not suid by default, but
                       optional)

Next question is if they should be installable at the same time or if
it's fine if they're mutually exclusive (i.e. all ship
/usr/bin/links2).

A links2-common package unfortunately seems not to make much sense as
there are currently no common files between the links and links2
package except the man page and the obvious and obligatory ones in
/usr/share/doc/ (copyright, changelog, etc.).

                Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <[email protected]>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
  `-    |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

Reply via email to