Subject: Re: maildir(5) problem
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Klaus Heinz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/06/2002 14:20:23
Jachym _Freza_ Holecek wrote:
> > I worked around this with patches that rename the 'setlock' program and its
> > man page to 'setlock-sm' (and of course all references to 'setlock' in the
> > source code).
> This is not ideal either. Maybe serialmail should depend on qmail? It
> wouldn't make many people unhappy I imagine. Alternatively setlock
Although I _think_, setlock from both packages is used for the same purpose
and is probably based on the same sources (haven't checked that), I would
like for every package to keep the programs that come with it. At least the
man pages differ in what they say about the arguments.
> could get it's own package, which would be somewhat silly, but a bit
> cleaner I believe.
I would agree if the program were _exactly_ the same thing in both packages.
This seems not to be the case now and might not be in the future when
both packages evolve further.
> It might be quite useful to have a simple way of sharing files between
> multiple pkgs. Were there any discussions on this topic?
I suppose there have been clashes of program names in the past and
it would be nice to hear how people have dealt with them.