From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Vong Subject: Re: util-linux and perl rename Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 21:02:18 +0800 Message-ID: <87bm6c2dr9.fsf@gmail.com> References: <557fa862-5ec2-656a-9f4d-15f1a46f42dd@freenet.de> <87in0k2ziv.fsf@gmail.com> <878t1gi59f.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55370) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRGX3-000605-L0 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 08:02:43 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRGWx-0006yI-Kg for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 08:02:33 -0500 Received: from mail-pg1-x531.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::531]:39937) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRGWx-0006xB-DV for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 08:02:27 -0500 Received: by mail-pg1-x531.google.com with SMTP id z10so6152519pgp.7 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 05:02:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <878t1gi59f.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Mon, 26 Nov 2018 03:58:41 -0500") 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: Mark H Weaver Cc: Guix-devel --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Mark H Weaver writes: > Alex Vong writes: > >> Thorsten Wilms writes: >> >>> I already had a "rename" binary via util-linux. Then I installed the >>> package "rename", resulting in another "rename" binary, as I prefer >>> the Perl version. This was a success in that I got what I wanted. >>> >>> 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? >>> >> I think it is chosen based on some random criterions > > It's not random, but rather a very simple criterion. The packages > listed first in the package manifest take priority over ones that come > later. If you don't use manifests, "guix package -i " puts > at the top of the new manifest, even if it was already present in the > previous manifest. > I see, so this explains how Thorsten managed to get the right rename (not because of luck or magic...) I personally had given up using the imprerative "install" interface and switched using the declarative "manifest" interface. IMO, it makes it clearer what I've installed and allows me quickly comment / un-comment fail-to-build packages. With the imprerative interface, I've to remember which fail-to-build packages I didn't upgrade last time. So in fact we have a 3rd solution: to re-order the packages in your manifest. > Mark Cheers, Alex --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYIAB0WIQQwb8uPLAHCXSnTBVZh71Au9gJS8gUCW/vu2gAKCRBh71Au9gJS 8tWFAQCRuBqSIEz+aX2Pb8Ork1BkXnknYT7k6Wq9Db1FKYFHaAEAx3rbdBxI63w2 yav9V05LLOu6g3ySXVHnwrWZtXCzygc= =2/y7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--