Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #187855
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.user |
| Subject | Re: Many executables across Debian's archives share basenames |
| Date | 2017-10-13 14:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uA7pT-3Pv-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <uxuM1-6bZ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <uxAop-1Ez-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <uxARs-23d-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <uxBaN-29h-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <uA6Nb-3mo-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:56:36PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 03:43:20PM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > >(And while we're painting the shed, I'd go for a /usr/bin/im.d, with a > >dispatcher script in /usr/bin/im or something...) > > Software Collections https://www.softwarecollections.org have a pretty > robust way of managing this sort of thing. Well, yes. But that would be painting the shed with an aircraft carrier ;-) FWIW, if going that far, I'd rather prefer Gnu Guix [1] which also manages the repeatable build of specific software versions. But back on topic, I think in the current case (old, well established binaries from X or ImageMagick) it just makes sense to live with the inconsistencies (and keep the lessons for when we go for a new system). Many younger generation (collections of) binaries (ip, openssl, git) tend to do the right thing anyway. Cheers [1] https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/guix/ - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlngsdoACgkQBcgs9XrR2kafcgCeLKEq+75ai9WLSzQx7FFW0VbU njEAn1atZdXY7fjex8Z3vWmoswTJVVQ3 =Gi5S -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Many executables across Debian's archives share basenames harry666t@gmail.com (Kamil Cholewiński) - 2017-10-05 22:30 +0200
Re: Many executables across Debian's archives share basenames Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2017-10-05 22:40 +0200
Re: Many executables across Debian's archives share basenames Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2017-10-06 00:20 +0200
Re: Many executables across Debian's archives share basenames <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-10-06 09:00 +0200
Re: Many executables across Debian's archives share basenames Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-10-06 15:00 +0200
Re: Many executables across Debian's archives share basenames Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2017-10-06 15:30 +0200
Re: Many executables across Debian's archives share basenames <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-10-06 15:50 +0200
Re: Many executables across Debian's archives share basenames Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-10-13 14:00 +0200
Re: Many executables across Debian's archives share basenames <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-10-13 14:40 +0200
Re: Many executables across Debian's archives share basenames Jerome BENOIT <calculus@rezozer.net> - 2017-10-06 16:30 +0200
Re: Many executables across Debian's archives share basenames <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-10-06 16:40 +0200
Re: Many executables across Debian's archives share basenames Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@freedbms.net> - 2017-10-06 23:20 +0200
Re: Many executables across Debian's archives share basenames Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-10-13 14:00 +0200
csiph-web