On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:43:46PM +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:

Am 04.05.2011 14:14, schrieb Dave Reisner:

...

...

I missed this conflict when I merged our new rc script: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/24082. The two packages in question are in [community]. I cannot see the conflict with extra/cmus, so I dont know what that is about.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to solve this? We could rename our script, or we could as plan9 packager to rename his I guess...

We should probably rename ours since we came later to the game and the rc shell is fairly well known. Just throwing ideas -- 'rcd' and 'dcon' both appear not to be taken.

Does this plan9 stuff have any relevance? In any case, there is no real file conflict:

$ pkgfile -bv rc core/initscripts (2011.04.1-2) : /sbin/rc community/9base (6-2) : /opt/plan9/bin/rc community/plan9port (20101110-1) : /opt/plan9/bin/rc

It's not a file conflict, but a PATH conflict. Calling 'rc' or using a '#!/usr/bin/env rc' shebang is likely the culprit. From community/plan9port's profile.d script: export PATH=$PATH:$PLAN9/bin So /opt/plan9/bin is ending up below /sbin. It fails silently because running something like: 'rc lolwat' doesn't [currently] exit with an error. d

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Dave Reisner wrote:

...

It's not a file conflict, but a PATH conflict. Calling 'rc' or using a '#!/usr/bin/env rc' shebang is likely the culprit. From community/plan9port's profile.d script:

Is there a convenient way to detect path conflicts (also in packages I have not installed)?

I guess we will rename the rc script for the next release, but the question is to what? Any opinions?

-t

My initial thought would be to name it "service", since that is the equivilent command in redhat/debian distros, the only problem is that the service command behaves differently in these distros so it might cause cross distro confusion.

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Dave Reisner wrote:

...

It's not a file conflict, but a PATH conflict. Calling 'rc' or using a '#!/usr/bin/env rc' shebang is likely the culprit. From community/plan9port's profile.d script:

Is there a convenient way to detect path conflicts (also in packages I have not installed)?

I guess we will rename the rc script for the next release, but the question is to what? Any opinions?

rc was so sexy but it seems to be the wisest. :( i will post a propisition with my night patch batch. Regards, -- Sébastien Luttringer www.seblu.net