Re: Gconf glitch

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>]

On 02Oct2001 11:08PM (-0400), Havoc Pennington wrote:
> 
> "R.I.P. Deaddog" <maddog linuxhall org> writes:
> > This is a minor conflict :
> > 
> > Both Gconf1 and GConf2 creates a symlink $bindir/gconftool to respective
> > real binary, namely gconftool-1 and gconftool-2. Is the usage of gconftool
> > untrustworthy now, and any package dependent on GConf2 should call or run
> > gconftool-2 instead?
> 
> Well, at the moment it doesn't matter, because the two gconftools
> support all the same things. 
> 
> I'm not sure what the right thing to do is; I'm tempted to say that
> people who care about version should include the version, and others
> should use the symlink. But that won't work out so well in practice.
> 
> Still I hate to make people type gconftool-2 on the command line.
> 

How does this work with packaging systems? Does the symlink you get
depend on the order in which the packages are installed?

 - Maciej