On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 21:07 -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > These points are all valid, but it would be slightly more helpful is > you suggested which text was particularly ambiguous-- some of these > points (such as the "let's not ship it" batch) have nothing to do > with > this proposal, which is about namespace definition and intent.
You're right, sorry. I didn't think it was ambiguous, I thought it was intentionally worded such that it allows non-conflicting interfaces in /usr/gnu. Previous mails in this thread indicated that components with insufficient stability should also live there, that's what I was referring to. This is the part of the proposal that I had a problem with: > this case proposes the introduction of /usr/gnu as a location for > alternate implementations of standard tools, as well as other > components, produced by the GNU project. in particular, the >> as well as other components, << bit. It sounds like anything that is GNU can go into /usr/gnu, maybe I'm just parsing it wrong. > The primary reason to introduce /usr/gnu is because of the points > raised by Joerg in an earlier thread, about other sources of > potentially conflicting implementations. I wasn't following that thread will try and find it. Thanks, Laca
