Debian bug report logs - #1115, boring messages

Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com:

Subject: Bug#1115: pbmplus version number and PATH requirements
Reply-To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson), debian-bugs@pixar.com
Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com
Resent-From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk
Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 14:03:04 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <debian-bugs-handler.1115.071814011021527@pixar.com>
Message-Id: <m0sY1L1-0000YFZ@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 95 02:20 BST
From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: Debian bugs submission address <debian-bugs@pixar.com>

Package: pbmplus
Version: 10dec91-2

Firstly, the version number will not compare properly in dpkg.  Could
you possibly switch to a big-endian format with the month represented
numerically ?  (And don't forget to use a 4-digit year.)  Something
like 1991.12.10-2 or 1991-12-10-2 or 19911210-2 would work well.

I know the Guidelines say you should use the upstream version number,
but they're rather out of date, and dselect's default mode of invoking
dpkg will include --refuse-downgrade.

Secondly, I see:

> Setting up pbmplus ...
>
> Make sure to add /usr/bin/pbmplus to your path if you want to use
> the PBMPLUS conversion tools.

IMO the files in /usr/bin/pbmplus should just go in /usr/bin.  There's
no reason not to put them there.  The command names are very unlikely
to clash with anything; on my system there are currently 450 files in
/usr/bin and 128 in /usr/bin/pbmplus, so it won't even have a
disastrous impact on the size of the /usr/bin directory.

IMO it's unacceptable to require all the users users to edit their
PATH.

What we really need here is /opt/bin, but the FSSTND group seem to
have disappeared into a puff of BSD compatibility ranting and it looks
like /opt will never get approved.

Ian.

Message sent:

From: iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
Subject: Bug#1115: Acknowledgement (was: pbmplus version number and PATH requirements)
In-Reply-To: <m0sY1L1-0000YFZ@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
References: <m0sY1L1-0000YFZ@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>

Thank you for the problem report you have sent regarding Debian GNU/Linux.
This is an automatically generated reply, to let you know your message has
been received.  It is being forwarded to the developers' mailing list for
their attention; they will reply in due course.

If you wish to submit further information on your problem, please send
it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, but please ensure that the Subject
line of your message starts with "Bug#1115" or "Re: Bug#1115" so that
we can identify it as relating to the same problem.

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system.

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, debian-bugs)

Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com:

Subject: Bug#1115: pbmplus version number and PATH requirements
Reply-To: "James A. Robinson" <jimr@simons-rock.edu>, debian-bugs@pixar.com
Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com
Resent-From: "James A. Robinson" <jimr@simons-rock.edu>
Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk
Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 16:48:04 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <debian-bugs-handler.1115.07181644049355@pixar.com>
Message-Id: <m0sYEYR-00001xC@plato.simons-rock.edu>
To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson), debian-bugs@pixar.com
In-Reply-To: Message from iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
   of "Tue, 18 Jul 1995 02:20:00 -0000." <m0sY1L1-0000YFZ@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 11:27:27 -0400
From: "James A. Robinson" <jimr@simons-rock.edu>

> Firstly, the version number will not compare properly in dpkg.  Could
> you possibly switch to a big-endian format with the month represented

Sure, sorry about forgetting that detail.

> IMO the files in /usr/bin/pbmplus should just go in /usr/bin.  There's
> no reason not to put them there.  The command names are very unlikely
> to clash with anything; on my system there are currently 450 files

They will clash with netpbm, which is much more popular then pbmplus.
I've also been watching the FSSTND list, and have not seen a good
solution yet.

> IMO it's unacceptable to require all the users users to edit their
> PATH.

IMO it is reasonable for the admin to update /etc/profile and add this
path to PATH.  This is the reason I keep advocating a PATH in
/etc/profile.  If a user wants to reset their PATH in their personal
dor files, that is fine with me, but I think it is reasonable for a
user to want/expect the admin to update the default PATH with any new
program directories.

Jim

Message sent:

From: iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: "James A. Robinson" <jimr@simons-rock.edu>
Subject: Bug#1115: Info received (was Bug#1115: pbmplus version number and PATH requirements)
In-Reply-To: <m0sYEYR-00001xC@plato.simons-rock.edu>
References: <m0sYEYR-00001xC@plato.simons-rock.edu>

Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report.  It has been forwarded to the developers to
accompany the original report.

If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring
that the Subject line starts with "Bug#1115" or "Re: Bug#1115" so that
we can identify it as relating to the same problem.

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system.

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, debian-bugs)

Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com:

Subject: Bug#1115: pbmplus version number and PATH requirements
Reply-To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson), debian-bugs@pixar.com
Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com
Resent-From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 10:33:07 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <debian-bugs-handler.1115.071910241127969@pixar.com>
X-Debian-PR-Package: pbmplus
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: 
Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Wed, 19 Jul 1995 10:33:07 GMT
Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 071910241127969;
          Wed, 19 Jul 1995 10:24:12 GMT
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0sYWGe-000651C; Wed, 19 Jul 95 03:22 PDT
Received: from bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk by pixar.com with SMTP id AA04356
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for debian-bugs-pipe@mongo.pixar.com); Wed, 19 Jul 1995 03:20:39 -0700
Received: by bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk
	(Smail-3.1.29.0 #36) id m0sYWGT-000C0EC; Wed, 19 Jul 95 11:22 BST
Received: by chiark
	id <m0sYHVp-0000YDZ@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
	(Debian /\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.32); Tue, 18 Jul 95 19:36 BST
Message-Id: <m0sYHVp-0000YDZ@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 95 19:36 BST
From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: debian-bugs@pixar.com
In-Reply-To: <m0sYEYR-00001xC@plato.simons-rock.edu>
References: <m0sY1L1-0000YFZ@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
	<m0sYEYR-00001xC@plato.simons-rock.edu>

James A. Robinson writes:
> [Ian Jackson wrote:]
> > IMO the files in /usr/bin/pbmplus should just go in /usr/bin.  There's
> > no reason not to put them there.  The command names are very unlikely
> > to clash with anything; on my system there are currently 450 files
>
> They will clash with netpbm, which is much more popular then pbmplus.
> I've also been watching the FSSTND list, and have not seen a good
> solution yet.

Ah, I see.  Which of netpbm and pbmplus are preferable ?  What I mean,
I suppose, is is there any reason for having both installed on the
same system ?  If not then name clashes are not a problem - they're
simply different versions of the same thing and can be marked as
`conflicting'.

> > IMO it's unacceptable to require all the users users to edit their
> > PATH.
>
> IMO it is reasonable for the admin to update /etc/profile and add this
> path to PATH.  This is the reason I keep advocating a PATH in
> /etc/profile.  If a user wants to reset their PATH in their personal
> dor files, that is fine with me, but I think it is reasonable for a
> user to want/expect the admin to update the default PATH with any new
> program directories.

As someone who has accounts on many different systems I find it
difficult to cope with schemes where the sysadmins like users' PATHs
to have to change when new software is installed.

Many such schemes can be very hard to administer for sysadmins and
helpdesk support staff too, and I don't want to see Debian go down
this route.

Consequently, I think that the introduction of new program directories
should be avoided where possible.

Ian.

Message sent:

From: iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
Subject: Bug#1115: Info received (was Bug#1115: pbmplus version number and PATH requirements)
In-Reply-To: <m0sYHVp-0000YDZ@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
References: <m0sYHVp-0000YDZ@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>

Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report.  It has been forwarded to the developers to
accompany the original report.

If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring
that the Subject line starts with "Bug#1115" or "Re: Bug#1115" so that
we can identify it as relating to the same problem.

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system.

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, debian-bugs)

Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com:

Subject: Bug#1115: pbmplus version number and PATH requirements
Reply-To: "James A. Robinson" <jimr@simons-rock.edu>, debian-bugs@pixar.com
Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com
Resent-From: "James A. Robinson" <jimr@simons-rock.edu>
Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 12:33:07 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <debian-bugs-handler.1115.07191227139619@pixar.com>
X-Debian-PR-Package: pbmplus
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: 
Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Wed, 19 Jul 1995 12:33:07 GMT
Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 07191227139619;
          Wed, 19 Jul 1995 12:27:13 GMT
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0sYY9u-00061qC; Wed, 19 Jul 95 05:23 PDT
Received: from plato.simons-rock.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA07380
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for debian-bugs-pipe@mongo.pixar.com); Wed, 19 Jul 1995 05:21:52 -0700
Received: from simons-rock.edu by plato.simons-rock.edu with smtp
	(Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0sYY9a-00001xC; Wed, 19 Jul 95 08:23 EDT
Message-Id: <m0sYY9a-00001xC@plato.simons-rock.edu>
To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson), debian-bugs@pixar.com
In-Reply-To: Message from iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
   of "Tue, 18 Jul 1995 19:36:00 -0000." <m0sYHVp-0000YDZ@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 08:23:06 -0400
From: "James A. Robinson" <jimr@simons-rock.edu>


> Ah, I see.  Which of netpbm and pbmplus are preferable ?  What I mean,
> I suppose, is is there any reason for having both installed on the
> same system ?  If not then name clashes are not a problem - they're

Yes, Netpbm has several filters Pbmplus does not, and vice versa.

> As someone who has accounts on many different systems I find it
> difficult to cope with schemes where the sysadmins like users' PATHs
> to have to change when new software is installed.

I think this is where we have had different admin experiences.  At the
place where I work, most of the users prefer me to set the PATH for
them, since I'm expected to know where all the binaries are (a Solaris
2.x machine, if you've had the fun-fun-fun experiance of
administrating one).

While we are not supposed to dictate administration to our target
audience, I feel that the sub-dir is reasonable because of the
following points:

	1) Bash and Tcsh will parse /etc/* login files first.  If
	   admins set PATH in these files, all users will have a
	   reasonable PATH setting.  If they wish to set their own,
	   they can simply overwrite or append to the default.

	2) If there is only one admin for the machine, your not
	   going to have a problem with him not knowing things.
	   If there is a helpdesk, the admin should have notified
	   them of any new packages/path's.  If there is more then
	   one admin, they should all be keeping logs of what they
	   do, and post messages to each other and the helpdesk about
	   new packages.  In any case, it is the alteration of a
	   single line in a single file which they have to keep
	   track of.

	3) Netpbm and Pbmplus do clash on the name level, as well as
	   each holding programs the other does not have.


Jim

Message sent:

From: iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: "James A. Robinson" <jimr@simons-rock.edu>
Subject: Bug#1115: Info received (was Bug#1115: pbmplus version number and PATH requirements)
In-Reply-To: <m0sYY9a-00001xC@plato.simons-rock.edu>
References: <m0sYY9a-00001xC@plato.simons-rock.edu>

Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report.  It has been forwarded to the developers to
accompany the original report.

If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring
that the Subject line starts with "Bug#1115" or "Re: Bug#1115" so that
we can identify it as relating to the same problem.

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system.

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, debian-bugs)

Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com:

Subject: Bug#1115: pbmplus version number and PATH requirements
Reply-To: mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell), debian-bugs@pixar.com
Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com
Resent-From: mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell)
Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 14:48:01 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <debian-bugs-handler.1115.071914432223491@pixar.com>
X-Debian-PR-Package: pbmplus
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: 
Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Wed, 19 Jul 1995 14:48:01 GMT
Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 071914432223491;
          Wed, 19 Jul 1995 14:43:22 GMT
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0sYaIK-0007xHC; Wed, 19 Jul 95 07:40 PDT
Received: from motgate.mot.com by pixar.com with SMTP id AA11273
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for debian-bugs-pipe@mongo.pixar.com); Wed, 19 Jul 1995 07:38:41 -0700
Received: from pobox.mot.com (pobox.mot.com [129.188.137.100]) by motgate.mot.com (8.6.11/8.6.10/MOT-3.7) with ESMTP id JAA21624; Wed, 19 Jul 1995 09:40:08 -0500
Received: from mdd.comm.mot.com (mdisea.mdd.comm.mot.com [138.242.64.201]) by pobox.mot.com (8.6.11/8.6.10/MOT-3.7) with SMTP id JAA02523; Wed, 19 Jul 1995 09:40:07 -0500
Received: from bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com by mdd.comm.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA05452; Wed, 19 Jul 95 07:40:04 PDT
Received: by bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA18740; Wed, 19 Jul 95 07:39:53 PDT
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 95 07:39:53 PDT
From: mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell)
Message-Id: <9507191439.AA18740@bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com>
To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk, debian-bugs@pixar.com, jimr@simons-rock.edu

"James A. Robinson" <jimr@simons-rock.edu> said, in an exchange with
Ian Jackson:

> While we are not supposed to dictate administration to our target
> audience, I feel that the sub-dir is reasonable because of the
> following points:

I'm commenting from the sidelines here.  How about installing in a subdir,
offering a postinst option to move or symlink the stuff to /usr/bin,
and cleaning up in postrm?  The user interaction in postinst could
explain about the other package and the conflicting filters.  postrm
cleanup could check where symlinks point or check the md5sum of files
before removing them to avoid removing files installed by that other
package.

[ObMention of file-level vs. package-level granularity in dependency and
 conflicts processing]

Message sent:

From: iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell)
Subject: Bug#1115: Info received (was Bug#1115: pbmplus version number and PATH requirements)
In-Reply-To: <9507191439.AA18740@bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com>
References: <9507191439.AA18740@bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com>

Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report.  It has been forwarded to the developers to
accompany the original report.

If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring
that the Subject line starts with "Bug#1115" or "Re: Bug#1115" so that
we can identify it as relating to the same problem.

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system.

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, debian-bugs)

Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com:

Subject: Bug#1115: pbmplus version number and PATH requirements
Reply-To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson), debian-bugs@pixar.com
Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com
Resent-From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 21:33:02 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <debian-bugs-handler.1115.07202125426133@pixar.com>
X-Debian-PR-Package: pbmplus
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: 
Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Thu, 20 Jul 1995 21:33:02 GMT
Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 07202125426133;
          Thu, 20 Jul 1995 21:25:42 GMT
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0sZ34i-0006QKC; Thu, 20 Jul 95 14:24 PDT
Received: from bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk by pixar.com with SMTP id AA10168
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for debian-bugs-pipe@mongo.pixar.com); Thu, 20 Jul 1995 14:22:30 -0700
Received: by bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk
	(Smail-3.1.29.0 #36) id m0sZ2B4-000C0SC; Thu, 20 Jul 95 21:26 BST
Received: by chiark
	id <m0sZ1ka-0002XXZ@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
	(Debian /\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.32); Thu, 20 Jul 95 20:59 BST
Message-Id: <m0sZ1ka-0002XXZ@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 95 20:59 BST
From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: debian-bugs@pixar.com
In-Reply-To: <m0sYY9a-00001xC@plato.simons-rock.edu>
References: <9507191439.AA18740@bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com>
	<m0sYHVp-0000YDZ@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
	<m0sYY9a-00001xC@plato.simons-rock.edu>

James A. Robinson writes ("Re: Bug#1115: pbmplus version number and PATH requirements "):
> Yes, Netpbm has several filters Pbmplus does not, and vice versa.

Right.

> 	3) Netpbm and Pbmplus do clash on the name level, as well as
> 	   each holding programs the other does not have.

This is a good reason.  I withdraw my request that the pbmplus
commands be merged into /usr/bin.

Harebrained idea: could we consider providing a `pbm-integrate'
package that provides a bunch of symlinks in /usr/bin, each to the
`best' version ?

> [...]
> 	1) Bash and Tcsh will parse /etc/* login files first.  If
> 	   admins set PATH in these files, all users will have a
> 	   reasonable PATH setting.  If they wish to set their own,
> 	   they can simply overwrite or append to the default.
>
> 	2) If there is only one admin for the machine, your not
> 	   going to have a problem with him not knowing things.
> 	   If there is a helpdesk, the admin should have notified
> 	   them of any new packages/path's.  If there is more then
> 	   one admin, they should all be keeping logs of what they
> 	   do, and post messages to each other and the helpdesk about
> 	   new packages.  In any case, it is the alteration of a
> 	   single line in a single file which they have to keep
> 	   track of.

For the record, I don't agree with these at all.  There's no point
arguing about it now, but I don't want to let them stand unchallenged.

When we need to make this decision for a package where it's a trickier
choice we can discuss the issues surrounding this in more detail.
With luck we won't have to ...

Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: Bug#1115: pbmplus version number and PATH requirements"):
> "James A. Robinson" <jimr@simons-rock.edu> said, in an exchange with
> Ian Jackson:
> > While we are not supposed to dictate administration to our target
> > audience, I feel that the sub-dir is reasonable because of the
> > following points:
>
> I'm commenting from the sidelines here.  How about installing in a subdir,
> offering a postinst option to move or symlink the stuff to /usr/bin,
> and cleaning up in postrm?  The user interaction in postinst could
> explain about the other package and the conflicting filters.  postrm
> cleanup could check where symlinks point or check the md5sum of files
> before removing them to avoid removing files installed by that other
> package.

I don't think this is a good solution.  It's likely to be very messy.

Furthermore, we want to avoid as much as possible prompting in
postinst scripts.

Ian.

Message sent:

From: iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
Subject: Bug#1115: Info received (was Bug#1115: pbmplus version number and PATH requirements)
In-Reply-To: <m0sZ1ka-0002XXZ@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
References: <m0sZ1ka-0002XXZ@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>

Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report.  It has been forwarded to the developers to
accompany the original report.

If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring
that the Subject line starts with "Bug#1115" or "Re: Bug#1115" so that
we can identify it as relating to the same problem.

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system.

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, debian-bugs)

Ian Jackson / iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk, with the debian-bugs tracking mechanism

This page last modified 07:43:01 GMT Wed 01 Nov