On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:56:44AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > The reason I ask is that in the past, even before EMBOSS > was packaged, some people accepted to rename their binary > so that the one of EMBOSS was left unchanged (many > thanks).
So this has happened before and could happen in the future, too. Renaming a binary is a diversion from upstream, which we want to minimize, in almost all cases. So, it seems that the best approach is to contain the "damage" to the emboss package. I suggest it is also a good idea to try and convince the EMBOSS upstream to try and avoid using binary names that are already in use in the wild. The /var/lib/emboss-in-$PATH approach seems best to me. You could write a helper-script to ease inserting and removing this from a given user's PATH and document that in the package notes. Using debconf to set/adjust PATHs is not wise, as this is a user-level consideration, not system-level. -- Jon Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
