Web lists-archives.com

Re: Bug#906250: ITP: execline -- small and non-interactive scripting language




On Sun, 2018-09-02 at 14:42 +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> Dear -devel,
> 
> When I try to package execline(a non-interactive shell script)[1], it
> installs following binaries in default PATH,
> 
> cd, if, exec, wait, ....
> 
> Some facts:
> * These names are other shells built-in, but in execline these are binaries.
> * There's no conflict binary name in archive currently.
> * If I install them in path like /usr/lib/execline/bin, then I need to
> ensure this path are in everyone's PATH.

Why can't execlineb add this to its PATH automatically?

> I find this package has option like `--enable-absolute-paths`, but as
> a result it doesn't work as I expect. When I contact upstream[2],
> upstream thinks these binaries should be in default PATH.
> 
> Any advice with packaging, can I install these binaries in default
> PATH(like /usr/bin)?

They should not be installed in the default PATH.  They don't appear to
be generally useful, and they are likely to be actively confusing. 
(Especially if you install manual pages for them all, which policy says
you should.)

Ben.

> [1] https://skarnet.org/software/execline/
> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/skaware@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg01225.html
> 
-- 
Ben Hutchings
I say we take off; nuke the site from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part