Re: install-info and LSB
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 11:57:03PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: The dpkg-iasearch package used to contain a program called dpkg-query. When the dpkg maintainers added a program with the same name, the dpkg-iasearch maintainer renamed his file, without worrying about 'seniority'. I think he did well to do so, don't you? Debian would do well to rename its install-info for the same reasons. dpkg-query was obviously very much inside the dpkg namespace. On the other hand, dpkg's install-info is both not really in texinfo namespace because it (...) As for this issue, even if I did get into dpkg namespace many other packages (such as dpkg-awk, dpkg-www, dpkg-ruby or devscripts) have interfered in that namespace. Without there being a policy on *who* or *how* program namespaces should be handled I fixed the bug, but you understand I could have *not* fixed it and reassigned it to 'dpkg'! I wonder if new packages/packages updates could be automatically checked for conflicts of this kind. It would have taken the dpkg maintainers an 'apt-file search dpkg-search' to foresee the bug *before* it happened (and contact me through other non-bug-report methods). Regards Javi
Re: install-info and LSB
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. While of course the LSB says nothing about install-info, the fact that Debian distributes a program under the name 'install-info' which is incompatible with the GNU version can cause trouble for users. For example: % tar xzf texinfo-4.2.tar.gz % cd texinfo-4.1 % make % sudo make install will put GNU install-info into /usr/local/bin. As, by default in Debian, this is in front of /usr/bin in root's path, package upgrades will break. I think Debian would be a better distribution if its install-info were renamed. I appreciate that the transition might take years, but that's no reason not to do it. -M-
Re: install-info and LSB
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 07:38:08PM +0100, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
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.
While of course the LSB says nothing about install-info, the fact that
Debian distributes a program under the name 'install-info' which is
incompatible with the GNU version can cause trouble for users.
As it has been pointed out hundreds of times, it is GNU that distributes a
program under then name 'install-info' which is incompatible with the dpkg
version. :)
(The version in dpkg has seniority.)
For example:
% tar xzf texinfo-4.2.tar.gz
% cd texinfo-4.1
% make
% sudo make install
will put GNU install-info into /usr/local/bin. As, by default in Debian,
this is in front of /usr/bin in root's path, package upgrades will
break.
No Debian user would never do such a silly thing in the first place...
apt-get install {tex,}info
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: install-info and LSB
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 11:19:26PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: As it has been pointed out hundreds of times, it is GNU that distributes a program under then name 'install-info' which is incompatible with the dpkg version. :) (The version in dpkg has seniority.) It's not a matter of seniority, it's a matter of producing the highest quality distribution. The dpkg-iasearch package used to contain a program called dpkg-query. When the dpkg maintainers added a program with the same name, the dpkg-iasearch maintainer renamed his file, without worrying about 'seniority'. I think he did well to do so, don't you? Debian would do well to rename its install-info for the same reasons. -M-
Re: install-info and LSB
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 10:40:02PM +0100, Matthew Woodcraft wrote: As it has been pointed out hundreds of times, it is GNU that distributes a program under then name 'install-info' which is incompatible with the dpkg version. :) (The version in dpkg has seniority.) It's not a matter of seniority, it's a matter of producing the highest quality distribution. Superficial restating of the issue certainly doesn't make your point clear... The dpkg-iasearch package used to contain a program called dpkg-query. When the dpkg maintainers added a program with the same name, the dpkg-iasearch maintainer renamed his file, without worrying about 'seniority'. I think he did well to do so, don't you? Debian would do well to rename its install-info for the same reasons. dpkg-query was obviously very much inside the dpkg namespace. On the other hand, dpkg's install-info is both not really in texinfo namespace because it its name is pretty generic as it is and is older than texinfo's version so this doesn't score well on the list of good reasons to swap them. Anyway, this discussion is superfluous too, as the dpkg maintainers have already decided to move over to the C, GNU version in the future. (See debian-dpkg list archives for details.) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: install-info and LSB
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 11:57:03PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: Anyway, this discussion is superfluous too, as the dpkg maintainers have already decided to move over to the C, GNU version in the future. (See debian-dpkg list archives for details.) I am pleased to hear this. -M-
Re: install-info and LSB
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Josip Rodin wrote: Anyway, this discussion is superfluous too, as the dpkg maintainers have already decided to move over to the C, GNU version in the future. (See debian-dpkg list archives for details.) We have?
Re: install-info and LSB
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 05:47:23PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: Anyway, this discussion is superfluous too, as the dpkg maintainers have already decided to move over to the C, GNU version in the future. (See debian-dpkg list archives for details.) We have? I remember you saying so yourself on -dpkg. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: install-info and LSB
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.
