[csw-maintainers] implementation question for CSWalternatives

Philip Brown phil at bolthole.com
Wed Oct 6 06:50:59 CEST 2010

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Mon Oct 04 16:32:48 -0400 2010:
>> register with CSWalternatives:
>>   Good, because it then becomes easy to figure out if a link was
>> created by our alternatives,
>>   vs done by hand or something.
> What repercussions would this have across an update of CSWalternatives
> itself?  Are these links registered in such a fashion that when
> they're removed during an upgrade they'd be reinstated correctly
> afterwards?

Yup. either they are "auto" generated, or they are a result of the
"manual" choice of a user. files for which will be left in a separate

erm.. waitaminit.. make that, "they COULD be regenerated". But I just
realized that would require a postinstall script. easy enough to do
once the need is known. Thanks for pointing that out.

Technically, that would count as a slight negative for this category
though: prompting the user to run the postinstall script.

>> register with CSWxyz
>>   Good, because if it points to a particular implementation for the
>> symlink, then when
>>   that package is removed, the symlink will automatically get removed.
>>   But then again, it should automatically get removed by class action
>> script anyway, so...
>>   are there any other benefits this way?
> I don't care for this as much as placing the ownership with
> alternatives itself.  The only real benefit I see is the one you've
> noted already.

sounds like "one vote for making the links registered to CSWalternatives" then.
Thanks for the feedback.

More information about the maintainers mailing list