On Aug 31, Jeff Johnson wrote: > On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 02:20:04PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: > > On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Jack Howarth wrote: > > > > > Has there ever been any discussion of the binary > > > /usr/sbin/install-info in terms of the Linux Standard > > > Base? I ask because dpkg is providing a perl based > > > version of this utility whereas all other distros > > > appear to be using binary only version. This came up > > > because the regex in perl 5.80 is buggy and breaks > > > the perl install-info for building glibc now. As a > > > workaround I rebuilt texinfo-4.2 with all of the redhat > > > install-info related patches and substituted this > > > binary only version for the one dpkg installs. While > > > this version is sufficient for building the packages > > > there does appear to be some incompatibilities related > > > to installing glibc-doc with this version of install-info. > > > I am wondering if we aren't violating the spirit > > > if not the letter of LSB by using a non-standard version > > > of install-info. Wouldn't it be better to move install-info > > > out of dpkg, add any required additional functionality > > > to the texinfo version of install-info and push those > > > changes upstream to the texinfo maintainers? Since > > > install-info is being called at both the Makefile level > > > in builds as well as at the packager level (eg rpm or > > > dpkg) it seems that we would be much better off if the > > > install-info used by debian was uniform with what > > > everyone else is using (be it a perl or binary version). > > > Any comments? > > > > Yes. you're a moron. > > Well that's pretty much true for anyone who posts to lsb-discuss, > including you and me. :-) > > There are several issues that might be candidates for standardization: > > 1) path to install-info executable > 2) arguments to install-info > 3) content, both input and output, of install-info > 4) location (or possibly configuration to specify) of output > > before we have to get back to feuding and fussing about uglix.
Well, the LSB does not standardize what install-info should do, therefore Debian is not "violating" (failing to comply with) the LSB. I guess you could make the argument that Debian probably should call its install-info something else, but then again we could have the same arguments about GNU tar versus Joerg Schilling's tar versus *BSD's tar. In the meantime, my suggestion would be to realize that Debian sid is unstable and that things can and do break. Unfortunately install-info was one of those things (but it appears to be fixed now that perl 5.8.0-10 is installed). (To put it another way, this has nothing to do with the LSB; if you want to whine about your distribution's general breakage, do it on their lists - which you have already done anyway - or on IRC.) Chris -- Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/ Computer Systems Manager, Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of Mississippi 125B Lewis Hall - 662-915-5765
