Debian bug report logs - #1115
pbmplus version number and PATH requirements

Package: pbmplus; Reported by: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson); 105 days old.

Message received at debian-bugs:

From cus.cam.ac.uk!iwj10 Thu Jul 20 14:24:09 1995
Return-Path: <iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
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
Subject: Re: Bug#1115: pbmplus version number and PATH requirements 
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.

Acknowledgement sent to iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson):
Extra info received and forwarded. Full text available.