Re: PROPSAL: making xaw-wrappers not divert

[Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net>]

Christoph Martin wrote:
> Not exactly. In the current system only xaw-wrappers has the
> responsibility to divert the files and keep track of them. In my
> proposal, the individual packages have to supply the conf files and
> have to call the register and unregister scripts on install and
> deinstall. xaw wrappers has only to supply the scripts and call them
> on  xaw-wrappers install and deinstall. 

I can say of the current system that individal packages _may_ "supply the
conf files" and if so "have to call the register and unregister scripts on
install and deinstall." The only difference is that your proposal says that
the package that is diverted by xaw-wrappers _must_ register itself, it cannot
be registered by some other package.

Aside from this difference, your proposal is identical to the status quo. 
update-xaw-wrappers is currently called on:

* xaw-wrappers install
* xaw-wrappers uninstall
* package using xaw-wrappers (that installs a new conf file) install
* package using xaw-wrappers (that installs a new conf file) uninstall

In your proposal, *something* is called on:

* xaw-wrappers install
* xaw-wrappers uninstall
* package using xaw-wrappers install
* package using xaw-wrappers uninstall

See, there is absolutly no difference.

> In the current system it could happend that a package moves a binary
> (as it happened with xdvi) and so brake it unaware that xaw-wrappers
> is installed. 

I wasn't aware that this broke, but if it did the fix is merely to make xdvi
register the package instead of having nextaw register it. That is possible
under the current system.

> With my proposal, tetex-bin would call
> xaw-rwappers-unregister in postrm and xaw-wrappers-register in
> postinst. So there would be everything fine.

As I said above, this is identical to the current design except you have
split one script that can be called at any time with 2. This is not a
functional difference. 

-- 
see shy jo