Subject: Re: Alternatives in the same package
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Mike M. Volokhov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/20/2005 17:58:05
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:42:38 +0200
"Geert Hendrickx" <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 02:51:07PM +0300, Mike M. Volokhov wrote:
> > Any opinion, how to create such packages?
> I'd suggest to split the package up, so there will be "binary" packages
> for both the perl and the ruby version.
That's exactly what I had done.
> pkg_alternatives aren't necessary as there is no need to have both
> installed. It's not a matter of different interfaces (thus user
> choice), just different dependencies (so only the sysadmin cares).
My packages will install xmlformat.pl and xmlformat.rb respectively.
However, both packages are powered by alternatives framework, so
sysadmin may bound any of both scripts to xmlformat. For people without
alternatives, short name may be assigned via shell aliases.
Thanks for you opinion.