Hello Axel, I am quoting your mail to document what we decided in our call today, below. Basically we went back to "use dpkg-divert":
* Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org> [220417 13:50]: > There is one other possibility to provide that: Using dpkg-divert > instead of update-alternatives with util-linux(-extra) shipping irqtop > and irqtop diverting it away to irqtop-ul iff both packages are > installed. > > This would have advantages and disadvantages: > > Advantage: > > * No special handling needed at all for util-linux or > util-linux-extra. > > Disadvantages: > > * Less choice for the admin which package provides irqtop if both are > installed. Then again that case usually only happens if someone has > already installed irqtop (the package, i.e. the ruby-written one) or > installs it on purpose. > > * The concept of dpkg-divert seems less well-known than > update-alternatives and might confuse users more often if they > expect util-linux's irqtop in that package. > > Most of the disadvantages could be fixed with making it clear in the > package description of the irqtop package that it's not util-linux's > irqtop implementation but a different one existing for a longer time > already. > > Then again, I don't think the gain isn't worth the effort. See below > > So that confusion (either with dpkg-divert or with renaming the > ruby-written irqtop binary to irqtop-nf and keeping it there) should > be limited to those users knowning about the ruby-written irqtop > implementation and not reading package descriptions and not reading > NEWS.Debian entries — which should the a very small group of users. > :-) Thanks, Chris
