[scl.org] 2 questions on software collections

Petr Pisar ppisar at redhat.com
Wed Jan 6 14:47:51 UTC 2016

On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:00:55AM -0500, Langdon White wrote:
> >The `alternatives` is not something I'd recommend, because that is based
> >on creating system-wide symlinks. So, e.g. creating /usr/bin/python that
> >would be actually python SCL binary (or wrapper) is not a good thing to
> >do. That is not how SCLs were designed to be used. SCLs were designed to
> >be used only when someone asks for `python`, but /usr/bin/python should
> >always point to system python.
> >
> Yeah, I think we tend to hyper-focus on the python use case, if we were
> talking ruby or apache it might be better. So, while it may never work for
> some scls (and I definitely know it is how it wasn't intended to be used) it
> might be worthwhile to investigate if it works. Even though it kinda flies
> in the face of "running two versions at the same time."
Alternatives rewrite system files. Thus to active a change, you need
a superuser and the change applies to all users, all processes, immediatelly.
Therefore it's equivalent to uninstalling one package and installing another
one. Ergo you do not need SCL for it. Just to package the new version.

-- Petr
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 213 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/sclorg/attachments/20160106/7aa3b245/attachment.sig>

More information about the SCLorg mailing list