Re: Question about -dev thread "Introduction of app-alternatives/coreutils"

On 3/24/26 2:13 AM, Ionen Wolkens wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 01:48:55AM -0500, Dale wrote:
>> On 3/24/26 1:08 AM, Alexis wrote:
>>> which comes across to me as implying that the contributor's proposal
>>> _would_ cause breakage, regardless of whether people wanted to switch
>>> to using uutils or not.
>>>
>>>
>>> Alexis.
>>>
>>> [a]
>>> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/CANQow5KPWC6bt0yg7QXw_xwKCYCjmdL=R1CGtQa7mUuA6OBgyQ@mail.gmail.com/
>>>
>> That is what I still can't figure out.  Why is a new package going to
>> break a old package when the new package isn't installed??
> Because it needs to change how the old package is installed for the
> new package to be installable in its current state -- which is part
> of the reason many developers are opposed to it.
>
> In theory it*shouldn't* cause problems but there can be edge cases
> depending on how users are using the package, and it was debated
> whether the news item is needed or not "just in case". The average
> user would likely be entirely unaffected beside possibly being
> surprised by the changes and wondering what happened without a news
> item.


Ohhhh.  So my current package would change so that the other package 
could be installed too.  I kinda get that.  Given the old package has 
such a long history, I'd argue the new package needs to deal with it's 
own thing and not interfere with the old package, installed or not.  
Basically, the new kid on the block has to prevent breakage if it is used.

The bad part of this, the package in question is so critical.  A system 
can't run without those commands.  Messing with that should only be done 
if it is absolutely necessary.  Basically no other option.  Yea, I'm not 
liking that idea.  I understand it better but still, it needs a better 
plan.

Thanks for explaining.  This helps and prevented clutter on -dev as well.

Dale

:-)  :-)