2011/6/12 Peter Bonivart <[email protected]>: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 3:56 AM, Ben Walton <[email protected]> wrote: >> Excerpts from Maciej Bliziński's message of Sat Jun 11 19:18:08 -0400 2011: >> >> Hi Maciej, >> >>> One of our guidelines has historically been to not provide binaries >>> in /opt/csw/bin named the same way as the ones in /usr/bin. For >>> instance, bug 4533 has been filed because cups packages provide >>> /opt/csw/bin/lp which conflicts with /usr/bin/lp. >> >> I'm not sure I'd consider this a problem. If you're using cups, you >> most likely want /opt/csw/bin/lp. You don't want to have to learn new >> commands for things that have traditional names (lp, lpstat, etc) >> because cups is in play either. >> >>> What are your thoughts on adding a check for binary name conflicts? >> >> I don't see it as a conflict personally. The filesystem provides a >> separate name space and we're using it. If you want the system lp, >> either set the path accordingly or fully qualify it. No point in >> jumping through hoops for something like this, imo. > > I agree with Ben here.
My inclination was also that it is alright to provide binaries with the same names. In my case, there was a number of scripts written by developers, who expected there to be a 'lp' command. If we provided binaries with a different name in /opt/csw/bin, then we would also need to make symlinks to them from elsewhere, the same way symlink in /opt/csw/gnu are provided. I would also need to add /opt/csw/gnu (or equivalent) to $PATH. At the end of the day, it would be not much different from just providing /opt/csw/bin/lp, just more complex. In the case of CUPS, I have removed the stock Solaris printing packages, so /usr/bin/lp and others were removed from the system. Any more opinions from other maintainers? Maciej _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
