Re: execline/imagemagick namespace collision

Laurent Bercot <[email protected]> wrote:
>> and actually should also put them into
>> /usr/local/bin according to http://cr.yp.to/slashpackage/management.html
>
>  That's a little more debatable. On a correctly administered system,
> slashpackagified packages _do not_ use that compatibility thing, and
> /command is in the standard PATH.

But is there any reason not to create symlinks there by default?

>  AFAICS, there is no conflict in /package strictly speaking :
> /command/import is execline's one, and ImageMagick simply doesn't follow
> the /package convention.

This is certainly a conflict.  I don't know what it would mean to say
that the conflict is "in /package", and I don't know whether it would
be useful to talk about that.  The only real question, AFAICS, is who
is going to change to resolve the conflict - you, or the ImageMagick
maintainer?  I'd suggest you, only because ImageMagick has been using
the name longer.

>  There might be some conflict in /usr/local/bin ; this is the
> sysadmin's problem, not the /package-guys' problem.

Conflicts should be resolved globally, not locally.  That's the point
of slashpackage.  We don't let ourselves collide with other registered
names, but we also don't let ourselves collide with known unregistered
names.  It's an unfortunate accident that ImageMagick's use of this
name was not known at the time you registered it.

I don't think we can rely on registration as a defense for not
changing our names in conflicts like this.  We can't expect to
convince others to change their names by pointing to a registry which
they don't use; unrecognized authority is no authority at all.  We
also can't allow a conflict to go unresolved for this reason, or else
we are failing in our effort to ensure that there are no conflicts.
Instead, we should look at factors like how long the name has been in
use, or how many people refer to the name.  It seems natural to me
that the younger program with the smaller audience loses.

> explicitly calling complete ImageMagick paths if you want
> ImageMagick commands.

Do you think users are willing to put up with that?  Do you think
slashpackage is succeeding if they have to do that?


paul