Hi,
On Thu, 19 Aug 2021, at 23:17, Boyuan Yang wrote:
在 2021-08-18星期三的 22:59 +0200，Geert Stappers写道:
/usr/bin/which.debianutils 0
in postinst and so on so that FreeBSD which and GNU which and friends could
take over.
Please do. Make such take over possible.
It is what https://salsa.debian.org/debian/debianutils/-/merge_requests/6#note_242172
is asking for.
So we will have https://salsa.debian.org/debian/which-gnu providing a binary
package with name "which". I will upload it to the NEW queue soon.
I'd rather suggest the FreeBSD which, which I'm mirroring here: https://salsa.debian.org/andrewsh/freebsd-which/
I think it's much simpler than the GNU one.
Hi,
在 2021-08-22星期日的 17:36 +0200，Andrej Shadura写道：
Hi,
On Thu, 19 Aug 2021, at 23:17, Boyuan Yang wrote:
在 2021-08-18星期三的 22:59 +0200，Geert Stappers写道:
/usr/bin/which.debianutils 0
in postinst and so on so that FreeBSD which and GNU which and friends >> > > > could
take over.
Please do. Make such take over possible.
It is what
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/debianutils/-/merge_requests/6#note_242172
is asking for.
So we will have https://salsa.debian.org/debian/which-gnu providing a
binary
package with name "which". I will upload it to the NEW queue soon.
I'd rather suggest the FreeBSD which, which I'm mirroring here:
https://salsa.debian.org/andrewsh/freebsd-which/
I think it's much simpler than the GNU one.
The GNU which package is now in NEW queue: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/gnu-which_2.21-1.html
Having both freebsd which and gnu which in Debian archive is definitely ok. If
you would like, please also upload freebsd-which onto unstable.
If there are several different versions of which in Debian, this willIt's okay, indeed, but please do consider NEW queue workload with thingsI'd rather suggest the FreeBSD which, which I'm mirroring here:The GNU which package is now in NEW queue:
https://salsa.debian.org/andrewsh/freebsd-which/
I think it's much simpler than the GNU one.
https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/gnu-which_2.21-1.html
Having both freebsd which and gnu which in Debian archive is definitely ok. If
you would like, please also upload freebsd-which onto unstable.
like this -- upload it if you're sure it's going to get used, not just
for completeness.
Hi,
The GNU which package is now in NEW queue: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/gnu-which_2.21-1.html
I must admit that I have no idea why replacing such a longstanding
utility is deemed necessary.
For such a simple tool, do we really need such many versions?
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 05:32:04PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
I must admit that I have no idea why replacing such a longstanding
utility is deemed necessary.
Maybe this riddle will help.
Imagine that you are the product manager for Debian `which`. According
to the hatemail in my inbox, this is the most important utility in the history of time,
such that even printing a warning to stderr causes
global devastation, block hints, and calls for impeachment.
You go on a Gemba walk,
Wearing your customer-centricity hat, what is the optimal set of
personas to unperson so that you can implement a solution that works
for everyone who still matters?
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 11:03:50AM +0800, YunQiang Su wrote:
For such a simple tool, do we really need such many versions?
At least you've asked the question. I'd love to think that there was a
proper evaluation of BSD which versus GNU which prior to the latter
being uploaded to NEW, and there's a compelling reason that the GNU one
was chosen; but if so there's no evidence of that on -devel. :(
It seems to install to /usr/bin/which.gnu, implying that you could
upload /usr/bin/which.bsd if you so desire; what's the issue?
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 11:02:49AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
It seems to install to /usr/bin/which.gnu, implying that you could
upload /usr/bin/which.bsd if you so desire; what's the issue?
I think we should have just one which implementation in the archive. We >should (have) pick(ed) the best one for Debian. I believe (perhaps >unfairly... I'd love to be proven wrong) that the GNU implementation was >uploaded very quickly, without the BSD implementation being considered. >Perhaps the GNU one is the best fit for our needs. It would have been
nice to see that there was an evaluation.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 09:00:52AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 11:02:49AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
It seems to install to /usr/bin/which.gnu, implying that you could >>>upload /usr/bin/which.bsd if you so desire; what's the issue?
I think we should have just one which implementation in the archive. We >>should (have) pick(ed) the best one for Debian. I believe (perhaps >>unfairly... I'd love to be proven wrong) that the GNU implementation was >>uploaded very quickly, without the BSD implementation being considered. >>Perhaps the GNU one is the best fit for our needs. It would have been
nice to see that there was an evaluation.
I think it doesn't matter how many which implementations are in debian.
If you want something with specific portable semantics, just use command
-v. The remaining consumers of which are either programs that (ipso
facto) don't care about semantic corner cases or are humans who want to
use which just because, and probably have strong opinions on how it
should behave (as, apparently, you do). We can't satisfy everybody with
one implementation, and I see no technical reason that we'd even try to
do so.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 09:00:52AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 11:02:49AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
It seems to install to /usr/bin/which.gnu, implying that you
could upload /usr/bin/which.bsd if you so desire; what's the
issue?
I think we should have just one which implementation in the
archive. We should (have) pick(ed) the best one for Debian. I
believe (perhaps unfairly... I'd love to be proven wrong) that the
GNU implementation was uploaded very quickly, without the BSD
implementation being considered. Perhaps the GNU one is the best
fit for our needs. It would have been nice to see that there was an
evaluation.
I think it doesn't matter how many which implementations are in
debian. If you want something with specific portable semantics, just
use command -v.
On 2021-09-21 at 16:16, Michael Stone wrote:
I think it doesn't matter how many which implementations are in
debian. If you want something with specific portable semantics, just
use command -v.
I think I've seen that suggested a lot as an alternative for 'which',
but it doesn't seem to be comparably reliable in all contexts.
On 2021-09-21 at 16:16, Michael Stone wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 09:00:52AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
If you want something with specific portable semantics, just
use command -v.
I think I've seen that suggested a lot as an alternative for 'which',
but it doesn't seem to be comparably reliable in all contexts.
The primary issue I've run across to date is with aliases.
I think it doesn't matter how many which implementations are in debian.
If you want something with specific portable semantics, just use command
-v. The remaining consumers of which are either programs that (ipso
facto) don't care about semantic corner cases or are humans who want to
use which just because, and probably have strong opinions on how it
should behave (as, apparently, you do).
I also think it may be more reasonable to prefer (by default, using the >alternatives mechanism) the more LSBish one (in this case GNU) rather
than the potentially more simple, clean, and full-featured one (BSD).
Thankfully we have the /etc/alternatives and Provides mechanisms to
affirm user choice in such cases, and I think most of us will agree this
is a totally equitable and reasonable compromise :-)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 231:46:58 |
| Calls: | 6,624 |
| Files: | 12,171 |
| Messages: | 5,319,444 |