On Friday 17 November 2006 16:44, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2006, George Danchev wrote:
> > Using alternatives mechanism -- currently I don't think that using
> > alternatives mechanism would be a benefit as a whole, but I might be
> > blind of course.
>
> Check /usr/bin/sensible-* in debianutils. They rely on alternatives
> and environment variables for defaults and overrides (respectively) and
> carry some logic to select the most adequate binary in the normal
> cases. E.g., sensible-cd-burner could spawn xcdroast; but I'm not sure
> this is what you want to achieve.
Sure, that could be another level of abstraction which could be implemented
further if necessary.
But currently I imagine the things as follows: low-level burners
provide the
proposed virtual -burner packages. Their clients (e.g. various console and X
frondends these low-level programs, various backup systems which could use
optical medium to write archives to, etc) should decide how to call (and look
for) these low-level programs which come with these virtual packages or allow
the user to do that him/herself from their configuration options.
So, before filing a bug against Debian Policy I'd like to sound if a
consensus could be reached wrt `cd-burner' and `dvd-burner' virtual package
names, since there might be any objections of doing so I could not be aware
of.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
