Hi, On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Guillem Jover wrote: > Actually, if called with an absolute path, the warning should ask the > caller to not use such absolute path (maybe as a side note, explain > the rationale, because it's generally wrong, and in this case because > it will stop working if using /usr/sbin/).
Fine. > > > . if called and there is no /usr/bin/install-info give a big fat > > > warning and die. Or? > > > > Dying is not really an option. It might be legitimate that > > /usr/bin/install-info is not here: because no info reader is installed. > > Right. Also I guess when warning we want to distinguish here the case > a maintainer script is calling us, which then we want to explain that > they should stop doing so, as this is handled by triggers now. And the > case a user is calling us which we'd recommend them installing at least > the install-info package and maybe an info-browser. Otherwise as there's > no /usr/bin/install-info we'll not be able to give accurate info. I can add print this additionnal information in case there's no /urs/bin/install-info and we have DPKG_RUNNING_VERSION set. If we have /urs/bin/install-info, it will take care of printing the message for us. > > Note: if we really wanted, we could avoid that intermediary wrapper and > > have it in dpkg but that would mean that the "install-info" interface is > > deprecated and that user are expected to use ginstall-info in the long > > term. > > Well, I don't see why that'd be the case. The install-info package > can always reclaim the correct path name in the future once we drop > the wrapper from dpkg. We want to avoid to have to coordinate once more for the final move. It's best to avoid a system with install-info installed but without install-info binary because dpkg was upgraded to a version that doesn't provide it. IOW, depending on install-info should be enough to ensure that install-info exists in $PATH. This can only be true if /usr/bin/install-info is part of install-info right from the beginning unless we want to add a Breaks: install-info (< first-version-with-usr-bin-install-info) once we remove the wrapper from dpkg. I prefer to avoid the supplementary Breaks and handle everything now without having to remember that we should add the Breaks once we remove the wrapper. What do you think ? > Anyway I think I'd prefer only one install-info in /usr/sbin/, but would > not mind the other one in /usr/bin/. In the latter case both should be > mostly identical IMO, either hardlinks in dpkg, or the same source > code duped in both packages (dpkg and install-info). As long as the one in /usr/sbin/ always ends up calling the one in /usr/bin I don't see what the problem is. Having two different behaviour depending on the order in PATH would be bad, but here we have a single behaviour since the one in /usr/bin gets to dictate what's done and the other one is a wrapper. The fact that the install-info package decided to make it a wrapper too (as opposed to "patch ginstall-info to have the desired behaviour") should not change anything from our point of view. A new version of the patch is in my branch, it should fix all the points you have brought up (except the common wrapper thing): http://git.debian.org/?p=users/hertzog/dpkg.git;a=commitdiff;hb=pu/install-info Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny : http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
