On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:07:55AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: > Here are my two cents on this issue. In the past for the > python variant packages I maintain, I have added conflicts > with the view that it is undesirable to allow users to > install multiple python variants of executable packages. > The user should have the option to build the package against > the python of his choice but it is highly unlikely that they > really want multiple python variants installed at the same > time. By allowing that, you just impose the user the responsibility > of manually deinstalling the older python variant if they > upgrade the package to a newer python variant. Also, currently > fink tries to force the developer to resort to profile scripts > to gain access to the desired binaries (since it doesn't allow > symlinks in %p/bin to the access the variant. The problem with > this approach is that it forces the developer to resort to > adding the variant binary directory to the path. I think this > is a rather poor design decision since it tends to create > unnecessarily long path environmentals. In relax-py, I decided > to avoid this issue by creating the desired symlink in the > postinstall script and deleting it in the preremove script.
So essentially you subvert the whole variant-orthogonality issue instead of just using update-alternatives to create automatic fall-over among whatever variant(s) a user may choose to install? dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [email protected] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
