Hi! On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 07:41:50 +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote: > That said, I appreciate your work on analyzing the situation as it also > uncovers tangential problems e.g. where different packages put programs > with different functionality into bin and sbin. It is up to > interpretation of Debian policy whether that should be considered an > RC-bug (10.1 "same filenames").
The Debian policy distinguishes between filename and pathname, and other implementations make little sense TBH, but it could be stated explicitly to make sure there's no room for misinterpretation. In any case this seem like a more generic problem with conflicting interfaces which would be nice to clarify. Some time ago I proposed #562863, but it got eventually closed as inactive. Although I'd be happy to work on that again if there is interest, by proposing some wording. > In general, I think that having each > program name on either bin or sbin but not both is a desirable property > and it should be easier to gain consensus on this. For the same implementation I think this is fine, if it provides compatibility or for a transition period. For different implementations or worse for different interfaces, this would be just wrong, as each one might shadow the other depending on the system or user PATH order. Thanks, Guillem
