a b wrote: > > > Haha... SGI IRIX package naming convention. Just last month reinstalled > > this unit I have here (Yes I still use it, and it's still very useful) > > and remember how many little tiny stupid files were required for just > > the base system. Three files per package. > > They weren't files, but hierarchical software package subsystems. > Same convention (with dots) is used by AIX and HP-UX as well. > > Consistency is sysadmin 101. > And some people here are two levels above that, at sr. system engineer > level, so they should well understand the importance of being consistent. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger Get it now! > <http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline> The thing is, it was the days where no real innovation was happening between any of them, SGI had some of a leg over the other with graphics, but internally, there was no point in *not* being consistent. Nowadays, vendors like to do it to keep people from migrating. Technically the package subsystems are more of a dependency file, a tar file holding contents, and a description, which Slackware in the Linux world does. It's not like it's magical, and it's annoying if you ask me to have multiple files per package, regardless. Unless it's jds or X11 there is no reason.
James
