although this topic faded away and irrelevant anyways since upcoming FHS forbids directories under /usr/bin -- just for completeness and possible food for thought
> And if you have to type in the full path every time that would be pretty > anoying and no improvement over /usr/lib/foo/bar. disagree -- actually it would be quite better: now, without any standardization of what/where gets under /usr/lib/foo, some projects ship binaries under /usr/lib/foo directly, some under /usr/lib/foo/bin, others under /usr/lib/foo/libexec... moreover for versioned ones it also varies pretty much orthogonally to above between /usr/lib/foo-01, or /usr/lib/foo/01 ... So, location of such complimentary, possibly user-oriented, executables varies a lot and there is no easy way for a user to find them -- when I am looking for what/where a specific package provides additional scripts I need to dpkg -L foo and then eyeball it. If all supplementary user-oriented scripts where under /usr/bin/foo(-version), it would have made their invocation much more convenient (if I know that I am looking an executable from foo I don't need first to research where it is -- I would know that if anywhere it is under /usr/bin/foo<TAB> -- directory it or a file) even though I would have needed to type a full path, since their location would be uniform. Just my few cents -- =------------------------------------------------------------------= Keep in touch www.onerussian.com Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111117220231.ga14...@onerussian.com