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

Ionen Wolkens <[email protected]> Mon, 23 Mar 2026 13:44:08 -0400

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.gentoo.devel
Message-ID	<acF76JP7IC_zRYkW@eversor>

On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 01:15:01PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2026 at 3:50 AM Ulrich Müller <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 2. Why do we need app-alternatives here, instead of a simple virtual
> >    (plus a blocker)? I find renaming (e.g. gls, gcp) and symlinking
> >    of all standard tools incredibly ugly.
> 
> I honestly prefer this idea as well.
> 
> As someone who will be sticking with GNU coreutils for the foreseeable
> future, this is my current preference list, from best to worst:
> 
> 1. Do nothing (maintain status quo)
> 2. virtual/coreutils with sys-apps/coreutils and
> sys-apps/uutils-coreutils blocking each other
> 3. app-alternatives/coreutils
> 4. eselect module to manage symlinks in /usr/bin

That would be my order of preference as well at the moment, not
that I'm against giving the choice per se.

Regardless of what we do, I do feel it could use more time/discussion.
What should've been a simple news item review kind of diverged into
a RFC about the idea itself, and rushing to adapting/changing the
implementation may just waste work.
-- 
ionen

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 525 B)