On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 7:31 AM Aleksandar Kostadinov <akostadi(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
Neal Gompa wrote on 05/21/18 12:46:
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 5:39 AM Aleksandar Kostadinov <
akostadi(a)redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Too bad, we're not talking about manual usage here but also projects
>> likely have build scripts or something. Using aliases is IMO a no-go.
>
>> I see presently 2 other packages providing `yarn` executable:
>
>> > $ sudo dnf whatprovides /usr/bin/yarn
>> > [sudo] password for avalon:
>> > Last metadata expiration check: 1:37:54 ago on Mon May 21
10:56:24
> 2018.
>> > cmdtest-0.30-1.fc27.noarch : Black-box testing for Unix command
line
>> tools
>> > Repo : fedora
>> > Matched from:
>> > Filename : /usr/bin/yarn
>> >
>> > hadoop-yarn-2.7.3-6.fc27.noarch : Apache Hadoop YARN
>> > Repo : fedora
>> > Matched from:
>> > Filename : /usr/bin/yarn
>
>> IMO we should provide some alternatives mechanism so that `yarn` is
>> whatever the user wants. We can't ask upstream packages to change to
>> Fedora specific binary names. Or we can but we will be ignored.
>
>> If we don't handle `yarn` better, then users would likely just install
>> `yarn` globally with `npm` and the distro package will not be used.
Thus
>> the exercise to maintain it would be mostly worthless.
>
>
> Take it up with the maintainers of nodejs-yarn, cmdtest, and
hadoop-yarn.
Got it.
> I'd probably object to the usage of alternatives for this,
since it
makes
> no sense in this case (all three /usr/bin/yarn binaries do
different
IMO it's a kind of alternative. Can we ensure that none upstream
packages will have conflicting binary names? And don't think we must be
an arbiter to upstream conflicting interests.
It's not even close to kind of an alternative. All three "yarn" binaries
have completely different purposes.
Alternatives has a very specific definition:
"A generic name in the filesystem is shared by all files providing
interchangeable functionality."
It is not true in this case. Actually, this is why the standard yarn
package provides both yarn and yarnpkg binaries. The latter never
conflicts, while the former does in many cases.
> things). If all three can be made to agree, then /usr/bin/yarn
should
> probably go to nodejs-yarn, due to its well-known usage.
I'd agree if you ask me but should we enforce something to users
that
can be configurable?
> But I disagree on it being "worthless". People are
increasingly using
yarn
> data and preferring it over npm, so being able to support that
in the
> distribution is very useful.
It is useful if it is accessible in a standard way. I think practice
to
diverge from upstream in incompatible ways needs to stop.
It is available in one of the two standard executables provided by
upstream. Would you prefer it available by neither?
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!