"Olaf van der Spek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 5/15/06, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 01:19:14AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >> >> I so far haven't seen any compelling arguments for multiarchifying the >> >> whole archive including all of */bin. >> > >> > Personnally I would favor a new files hierachy that allow every >> > arch-dependend files to be co-installable. Even if we are not able to >> > take full advantage of it at once, it seems saner and more forward-looking >> > than only allowing libraries to be co-installable. This might also make >> > easier to have this new scheme adopted by other OS. >> > >> > Cheers, >> >> But would make it totaly incompatible with existing systems. > > Why do you think there's no compatible solution?
Because basicaly all sources assume binaries go to <prefix>/bin. You want to break that. Also a lot of scripts expect binaries to be where they are and anything setting PATH too. We have thought hard about this over the last 2 years and nobody has come up with a non disruptive way to change binary location that is both upwards and downwards compatible. That certainly isn't a proof but untill someone comes up with a solution I will keep asuming there is none. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]