Re: Re: news item: Introduction of app-alternatives/coreutils

>>>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2026, Ionen Wolkens wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 09:27:19AM +0000, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> I really want to let the two coexist though. It's possible with a
>> virtual, a USE=symlink, and some require/block logic, but that comes
>> with more switching pain. At this stage it's IMHO better to use
>> app-alternatives, which is specially designed for this.

For the record, I am strongly opposed to the app-alternatives variant.
It comes with some cost (however little) for the vast majority of users,
just for slightly more convenient use of what at this point I would
consider a niche application. And as was said before, we can revisit
the issue in future.

Can you elaborate what the "switching pain" would be with a virtual?
Because a USE flag (or even two IIUC) would also be needed for
app-alternatives. Also, how often do you expect users to switch?

> Like noted in another mail they can coexist one way just fine. Not
> as convenient as app-alternatives but I think there's just a fair
> amount of opposition to the idea of changing the original coreutils
> over this. This could be revisited in the future if we feel it is
> really needed but at this stage I'd (personally) rather a less
> invasive alternative that'd also need no news item.

Exactly.

Ulrich

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQFfBAEBCABJFiEEtDnZ1O9xIP68rzDbUYgzUIhBXi4FAmnBSoobFIAAAAAABAAO
bWFudTIsMi41KzEuMTIsMiwyDxx1bG1AZ2VudG9vLm9yZwAKCRBRiDNQiEFeLmET
B/4vHoa/gICbYI4rWsIfIxtUcIJeZ5kS4ds5SxJ4VV6PgpWA8EBXWNKIfWNcbdSs
0H/3nVux58eyDTyEjJQBv1ybR4u9VVT+wMyYHfHJvHeqSpZ5o/MnQd+cEdD1Yg6P
wfGbCKXcrK+cY2bjwTsiBZQtRaGw9PfbhTPaxPuh4epkbbV6J2/YI4v1SYsCK3KQ
ilafOE9/Vj7GMOWsEk346KskHdAKtcfAsY6+6mCZoSj9vZUoMSfw4gJtmSEIB6wX
5UnKiuuKR9quxvZq3Lp8xV32pBLs9lBB3cdxYu7YLAyoqMeXilkVWs1h/Q+UXtob
IuDZS5Y7e3i1v03hRPtlSUn3
=Eitd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----