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: X-Debian-PR-Package: pbmplus X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Tue, 18 Jul 1995 14:03:04 GMT Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 071814011021527; Tue, 18 Jul 1995 14:01:11 GMT Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0sYD97-00063SC; Tue, 18 Jul 95 06:57 PDT Received: from bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk by pixar.com with SMTP id AA10099 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for debian-bugs-pipe@mongo.pixar.com); Tue, 18 Jul 1995 06:55:38 -0700 Received: by bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk (Smail-3.1.29.0 #36) id m0sYCCh-000C0MC; Tue, 18 Jul 95 13:56 BST Received: by chiark id (Debian /\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.32); Tue, 18 Jul 95 02:20 BST Message-Id: Date: Tue, 18 Jul 95 02:20 BST From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) To: Debian bugs submission address 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 I know the Guidelines say you should use the upstream version number, but they're rather out of date, and dselect's default mode of invoking dpkg will include --refuse-downgrade.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: References: 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" , debian-bugs@pixar.com Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com Resent-From: "James A. Robinson" Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 16:48:04 GMT Resent-Message-ID: X-Debian-PR-Package: pbmplus X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Tue, 18 Jul 1995 16:48:04 GMT Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 07181644049355; Tue, 18 Jul 1995 16:44:04 GMT Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0sYFhk-00063SC; Tue, 18 Jul 95 09:41 PDT Received: from plato.simons-rock.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA16788 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for debian-bugs-pipe@mongo.pixar.com); Tue, 18 Jul 1995 09:39:28 -0700 Received: from simons-rock.edu by plato.simons-rock.edu with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0sYEYR-00001xC; Tue, 18 Jul 95 11:27 EDT Message-Id: 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." Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 11:27:27 -0400 From: "James A. Robinson" > 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" Subject: Bug#1115: Info received (was Bug#1115: pbmplus version number and PATH requirements) In-Reply-To: References: 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: 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 (Debian /\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.32); Tue, 18 Jul 95 19:36 BST Message-Id: Date: Tue, 18 Jul 95 19:36 BST From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) To: debian-bugs@pixar.com In-Reply-To: References: 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: References: 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" , debian-bugs@pixar.com Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com Resent-From: "James A. Robinson" Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 12:33:07 GMT Resent-Message-ID: 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: 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." Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 08:23:06 -0400 From: "James A. Robinson" > 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" Subject: Bug#1115: Info received (was Bug#1115: pbmplus version number and PATH requirements) In-Reply-To: References: 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: 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" 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: 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 (Debian /\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.32); Thu, 20 Jul 95 20:59 BST Message-Id: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 95 20:59 BST From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) To: debian-bugs@pixar.com In-Reply-To: References: <9507191439.AA18740@bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com> 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" 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: References: 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