I demand that Junichi Uekawa may or may not have written...
[snip]
> My recommended action is:
> 1. tell them /usr/bin/git name is already taken, and we're renaming it to
>piggy
I'd say "sum", but that's already taken too. ;-)
--
| Darren Salt | linux (or ds) at | nr. Ashington,
| sarge,
Hi,
> The upstream Cogito people have added a /usr/bin/git executable (over
> my objections) which conflicts with GNU Interactive Tools' /usr/bin/git.
>
> Their argument is that GNU Interactive Tools is obsoleted by mc and
> should just go away.
>
> Should I just make my cogito package Conflict
Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
> The upstream Cogito people have added a /usr/bin/git executable (over
> my objections) which conflicts with GNU Interactive Tools' /usr/bin/git.
>
> Their argument is that GNU Interactive Tools is obsoleted by mc and
> should just go away.
For what it's worth, popcon
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 05:24:47PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
Isn't this simply a case of,`too bad cogito guys, that filename is
already taken.'
I suppose other things being equal it'd make sense to give the older
package priority.
Though git (the new
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 05:24:47PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> Isn't this simply a case of,`too bad cogito guys, that filename is
> already taken.'
I suppose other things being equal it'd make sense to give the older
package priority.
Though git (the new one) seems something that users are partic
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 06:05:53PM -0500, Michael Janssen wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > Why not just take the git developers at their word, and assume that the
> > intersection between users of git and of GNU Interactive Tools is likely
> > to be the empty set?
> >
> > T
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
The upstream Cogito people have added a /usr/bin/git executable (over
my objections) which conflicts with GNU Interactive Tools' /usr/bin/git.
Their argument is that GNU Interactive Tools is obsoleted by mc and
should just go away.
They are wrong
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 04:51:12PM -0500, Michael Janssen wrote:
> > > Le Jeudi 02 Juin 2005 21:25, Sebastian Kuzminsky a écrit :
> > > > Should I just make my cogito package Conflict with the GNU Interactive
> > > > Tools git package?
> ...
> > My sug
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 04:51:12PM -0500, Michael Janssen wrote:
> > Le Jeudi 02 Juin 2005 21:25, Sebastian Kuzminsky a écrit :
> > > Should I just make my cogito package Conflict with the GNU Interactive
> > > Tools git package?
...
> My suggestion is to rename the binary in the cogito package to
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le Jeudi 02 Juin 2005 21:25, Sebastian Kuzminsky a écrit :
> > Should I just make my cogito package Conflict with the GNU Interactive
> > Tools git package?
>
> I'm not sure if this a solution here, but their is a tool that can be usefull:
> update-alt
Le Jeudi 02 Juin 2005 21:25, Sebastian Kuzminsky a écrit :
> Should I just make my cogito package Conflict with the GNU Interactive
> Tools git package?
I'm not sure if this a solution here, but their is a tool that can be usefull:
update-alternatives.
If your user has to use only one of both, th
The upstream Cogito people have added a /usr/bin/git executable (over
my objections) which conflicts with GNU Interactive Tools' /usr/bin/git.
Their argument is that GNU Interactive Tools is obsoleted by mc and
should just go away.
Should I just make my cogito package Conflict with the GNU Intera
12 matches
Mail list logo
