From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Danny Milosavljevic Subject: Re: util-linux and perl rename Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 20:25:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20181122202548.77d6f6e3@scratchpost.org> References: <557fa862-5ec2-656a-9f4d-15f1a46f42dd@freenet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/oBVqGvy/=V5ZtXZChnWB0LH"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43009) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gPuc2-0003ee-H2 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:26:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gPubz-0003Un-Dl for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:26:06 -0500 Received: from dd26836.kasserver.com ([85.13.145.193]:35700) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gPubz-0003Jv-6i for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:26:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: <557fa862-5ec2-656a-9f4d-15f1a46f42dd@freenet.de> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Thorsten Wilms Cc: Guix-devel --Sig_/oBVqGvy/=V5ZtXZChnWB0LH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 22:10:24 +0100 Thorsten Wilms wrote: > I already had a "rename" binary via util-linux. Then I installed the=20 > package "rename", resulting in another "rename" binary, as I prefer the=20 > Perl version. This was a success in that I got what I wanted. >=20 > However, should this name clash be considered a bug? > Is there a policy for such circumstances? > What happens that the newly installed "rename" gets precedence? That depends. If you installed "util-linux" into your profile and also "rename" into your profile, you should have gotten a collision warning. (If we ever get these cleaned up then we should make the remaining ones collision errors) I've just tried it with guix master, I get no collision warning. I think that's a real bug. (Didn't those work in the past? *scratches head*) --Sig_/oBVqGvy/=V5ZtXZChnWB0LH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEds7GsXJ0tGXALbPZ5xo1VCwwuqUFAlv3ArwACgkQ5xo1VCww uqW1mQgAjMHikk+NxzO1l6fZvE3VR7zj3v3gy2GCIhR4o7fizMI/QY85GIbYgsU6 nXx3E5Xt9yd4zJxDl2L5k/m36kYBsCLYv9xEK1hlstg6RmnjrROcOM8l/I0FsK9a SgXPVl4fFWtZgg3KInLgVFiX50E+OjHJne1pTB39zshuLmV+4JRjNHRwH8GKpI4i nAM4Cz63F9faMeY1BXiZjuogSOGhUURLlBlUvwrR+Eys/HmUgHR4xLiwwZEUmmUq A70CRtMnMzzNNqUHSb3Rw9+gd+W2SrrSRMR/jMKJvLhSHqULVZ/AdMrHz3eyWZDG WyF9zwda9m2h97gZh2/J7JX0GXLlVA== =1HdW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/oBVqGvy/=V5ZtXZChnWB0LH--