<strong>Report forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, David Engel &lt;david@debian.org&gt;</code>:<br>
<code>Bug#8914</code>; Package <code>ical</code>.


debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgDavid Engel &lt;david@debian.org&gt;

Sorry, this message was lost when this bug report was restored from a backup.


<strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Herbert Xu &lt;herbert@greathan.apana.org.au&gt;</code>:<br>
New bug report received and forwarded.  Copy sent to <code>David Engel &lt;david@debian.org&gt;</code>.


Herbert Xu &lt;herbert@greathan.apana.org.au&gt;

Sorry, this message was lost when this bug report was restored from a backup.


Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 21 Apr 1997 00:07:08 +0000
Received: (qmail 31873 invoked from network); 21 Apr 1997 00:07:07 -0000
Received: from greathan.apana.org.au (herbert@203.14.152.113)
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 21 Apr 1997 00:07:02 -0000
Received: (from herbert@localhost)
	by greathan.apana.org.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA06296;
	Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:06:29 +1000
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:06:29 +1000
Message-Id: <199704210006.KAA06296@greathan.apana.org.au>
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@greathan.apana.org.au>
Subject: ical: /usr/bin/ical a link to /usr/bin/ical-2.1
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Mailer: bug 2.92

Package: ical
Version: 2.1-1

This is totally pointless because if the intent were to have multiple versions
of ical coexist, then it should be done through /etc/alternatives.  So please
remove ical-2.1 and just have ical.  Thank you.

-- System Information
Debian Release: 1.2
Kernel Version: Linux greathan 2.0.29 #1 Wed Apr 9 08:02:37 EST 1997 i586 unknown

Versions of the packages ical depends on:
ldso	Version: 1.8.10-2
libc5	Version: 5.4.23-2
libg++27	Version: 2.7.2.1-8
tcl76	Version: 7.6p2-4
tk42	Version: 4.2p2-4
xlib6	Version: 3.2-3



<strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, David Engel &lt;david@debian.org&gt;</code>:<br>
<code>Bug#8914</code>; Package <code>ical</code>.


debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgDavid Engel &lt;david@debian.org&gt;

Sorry, this message was lost when this bug report was restored from a backup.


<strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>David Engel &lt;david@sw.ods.com&gt;</code>:<br>
Extra info received and forwarded to list.  Copy sent to <code>David Engel &lt;david@debian.org&gt;</code>.


David Engel &lt;david@sw.ods.com&gt;

Sorry, this message was lost when this bug report was restored from a backup.


Received: (at 8914) by bugs.debian.org; 21 Apr 1997 14:46:11 +0000
Received: (qmail 18329 invoked from network); 21 Apr 1997 14:46:10 -0000
Received: from elo.sw.ods.com (160.86.13.20)
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 21 Apr 1997 14:46:10 -0000
Received: by elo.sw.ods.com
	id m0wJKM1-00013jC
	(Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Mon, 21 Apr 1997 09:46:05 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <19970421094604.52349@sw.ods.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 09:46:04 -0500
From: David Engel <david@sw.ods.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@greathan.apana.org.au>, 8914@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#8914: ical: /usr/bin/ical a link to /usr/bin/ical-2.1
References: <199704210006.KAA06296@greathan.apana.org.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.68
In-Reply-To: <199704210006.KAA06296@greathan.apana.org.au>; from Herbert Xu on Mon, Apr 21, 1997 at 10:06:29AM +1000

On Apr 21, Herbert Xu wrote
> Package: ical
> Version: 2.1-1
> 
> This is totally pointless because if the intent were to have multiple versions
> of ical coexist, then it should be done through /etc/alternatives.  So please
> remove ical-2.1 and just have ical.  Thank you.

This is done by the upstream source.  It is also done in some other
packages including emacs and perl.

I don't believe Debian has any policy covering this.  Should we, and
if so, what should it be?

David
-- 
David Engel                        ODS Networks
david@sw.ods.com                   1001 E. Arapaho Road
(972) 234-6400                     Richardson, TX  75081