Subject: Re: Alternatives in the same package
To: Mike M. Volokhov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Geert Hendrickx <email@example.com>
Date: 04/25/2005 09:28:31
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 10:17:07AM +0300, Mike M. Volokhov wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:57:00 +0200
> "Julio M. Merino Vidal" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Is it there any difference, from the user point of view, when using
> > xmlformat.pl instead of xmlformat.rb (and viceversa)? If so, then
> > using alternatives is correct because each user will be free to use
> > the version he prefers.
> > If not (i.e., both programs are exactly the same but coded in
> > different languages), this could be simplified by making each
> > package install the xmlformat "binary" and adding conflicts against
> > each other. After all, only the administrator will care about the
> > version used (due to its dependencies).
> seems too many people prefer don't use alternatives in such packages.
> If so, I'll convert both to mutualy exclusive ones. Thanks for the idea.
> But to address further questions, is anywhere explained where to use
> alternatives and where to not?
See the above quote.