Stephen Hahn writes:
> > I'm otherwise happy with this proposal, but would like to raise one final
> > issue (which btw. came up also during a discussion on sfwnv-discuss):
> >
> > http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=8620&tstart=0
>
> I went and looked at the SFW implementation of binutils. We are
> already doing a custom install, so the cost of mixing the binary
> locations is not "uneconomical" (quoting myself). Accordingly, we are
> still debating the purity of a PATH with /usr/bin alone; serendipitous
> discovery suggests that we should put unconflicting commands there.
>
> I believe this is our major remaining issue.
Indeed. See my reply to Bart's mail for further arguments favoring purity.
> > How do we handle GNU libraries? In the specific case of a shared
> > libreadline, it would probably go into /usr/lib since it doesn't conflict
> > with existing stuff in /usr. Since there seem to be licensing issues here,
> > though, I think it would be useful for this case to provide guidelines on
> > how to handle this case.
>
> (I had a draft case on programmatic licensing once upon a time, but
> shelved it. Perhaps it's time to dust it off.)
That would be useful.
> I agree that a non-conflicting library would go in /usr/lib. I don't
> think we can separate out /usr/libexec, since JDS and others have
> established precedent (but we will keep /usr/gnu/libexec).
Fine with me. I can live with the established
/usr/lib/<package>/<helper prog or shared object>
just as well as with /usr/libexec, so introducing the latter seems
unnecessary for OpenSolaris. I think we should say so explicitly in the
/usr/gnu proposal since for non-conflicting packages the libexecdir suffix
will change compared to conflicting ones.
Rainer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University
