On May 1, 2006, at 7:35 PM, Stephen Hahn wrote: > * Laszlo (Laca) Peter <laca at sun.com> [2006-05-01 10:17]: >> On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 07:39 -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>> Jeremy Teo wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I've been following this thread from some time and I would just >>>> like >>>> to clarify the following: >>>> >>>> 1. What is the key difference between /usr/sfw, /usr/gnu, and the >>>> Companion CD? >>>> >>>>> From what I understand: >>>> >>>> /usr/sfw: A mistake, and now everything that is stable should be >>>> moved >>>> into /usr >>> >>> Everything that doesn't have the same name as an existing thing >>> in /usr >>> should be moved. >> >> So shouldn't everything in /usr/sfw that has the same name as an >> existing thing in /usr be moved to /usr/gnu (after officially >> defining it) or shouldn't we just redefine the role of /usr/sfw >> and not create /usr/gnu? > > Although I normally like to reuse stuff, I think we should introduce > /usr/gnu as a precise way of identifying the "alternative commands > environment" it represents.
Shouldn't an "alternative commands environment" live in /opt ??? In this case /opt/gnu Kaiser Jasse -- Authorized Stealth Oracle The axioms of wisdom: 1. You can't outstubborn a cat 2. You can't conquer the universe without the knowledge of FORTRAN 3. In the Unix realm, 10% of work fixes 90% of the problems
