On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 03:38:39PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > So the only purpose of "fsl" is to provide these namespace-eating > convenience symlinks ? If so I'm not sure that this is a good purpose > for a a package.
Well, it has been 'invented' to address a frequent user-problem that people can readily use the GUI parts of that package (because they are avialable via wrappers in /usr/bin and visible in the desktop menu), but once they switch to the console they cannot "see" the rest of the suite. Of course they should read the documentation to learn how they should set up their $PATH correctly (and it is as simple as `man fsl`), but instead they flood the upstream mailing list with things like "Debian package broken...". I was trying to address this issue with a package that specifically addresses these things _in addition_ to the actual package that installs the suite into a private namespace. > Rather, unconditionally install the convenience symlinks but in a > dedicated directory which users can put on their PATH. Amongst other > benefits, that will mean that the namespace clash can be resolved on a > per-user basis. This is already done that way for the 'fsl-4.1' that actually contains the suite. Still the question remains whether this setup is forbidden by policy 10.1? Would it help to move the package from optional to extra? Michael -- GPG key: 1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke http://mih.voxindeserto.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100813163006.ga...@meiner
