[pkg-lighttpd] Bug#479501: Bug#479501: file conflicts between packages

[Alexander Turcic]

Pierre, I am certain that spawn-fcgi comes from the Lighttpd team. Also 
check out this source snippet from the cherokee:

http://svn.cherokee-project.com/browser/cherokee/trunk/contrib/spawn-fcgi.c

* File borrowed from lighttpd. I have only cleaned up the headers
* inclusion mess. Its original license follows:
*                            Alvaro Lopez Ortega <alvaro at gnu.org>

So given that it's really from Lighttpd, and that it's likely that 
future version will come from Lighttpd as well, not cherokee, shouldn't 
we give Lighttpd priority?

Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 07:22:17AM +0000, Michael Ablassmeier wrote:
>> Package: cherokee, lighttpd
>> Severity: serious
>> Justification: policy violation
>>
>> hi,
>>
>> both cherokee and lighttpd  ship
>>  `/usr/share/man/man1/spawn-fcgi.1.gz'
>> but do neither conflict, nor add a diversion, thus fail to be installed in the
>> same environment:
>>
>>  > Unpacking lighttpd (from .../lighttpd_1.4.19-2_amd64.deb) ...
>>  > dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/lighttpd_1.4.19-2_amd64.deb (--unpack):
>>  >  trying to overwrite `/usr/share/man/man1/spawn-fcgi.1.gz', which is also in package cherokee
>>  > Processing triggers for man-db ...
>>  > Errors were encountered while processing:
>>  >  /var/cache/apt/archives/lighttpd_1.4.19-2_amd64.deb
>>  > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
>>
>> bye,
>>     - michael
> 
>   Hmm for all I can see, both "spawn-fcgi" seem to come from the very
> same implementation, they are totally compatible wrt arguments on the
> CLI, and their usage is almost the same (except for version and
> copyright informations, which suggest abuse from one of both binaries,
> if not both, but that's not the question here).
> 
>   Given that, I assume alternative is the best way to deal with this,
> and cherokee's man page is better, so I'd suggest the cherokee
> spawn-fcgi{,.1.gz} to be the highest priority.
> 
>   Gunnar: If you agree, I'll fix that in a lighttpd 1.4.19-3 upload, so
> you'd have to conflict with lighttpd << 1.4.19-3 and I'll probably have
> to conflict with cherokee << 0.6.1-2 so that one is forced to migrate to
> a package that uses alternatives before trying to coinstall.
> 
> Cheers,