On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 08:50 -0800, Bart Smaalders wrote: > Marcel Telka wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 17:07 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > >> Darren Reed <Darren.Reed at Sun.COM> wrote: > >> > >>> /usr/sfw was fairly straightforward - where we installed software that > >>> was bundled but not part of ON. This was problematic for many because > >>> the default paths of various environments do not include /usr/sfw. > >> For me, it would be important not to confuse /usr/sfw with /usr/gnu > >> and to only put GNU (FSF) software into /usr/gnu and not arbitrary free > >> software (even though this software may be under the GPL). > > > > If I understand it correctly you want to put GNU software into /usr/gnu > > and non-GNU software under /usr/sfw. Then the question is what we will > > do in case when some non-GNU software (placed in our /usr/sfw) becomes a > > GNU software? Will we move the software into /usr/gnu or not? > > > > > Actually, /usr/sfw/ is going away. Binaries that don't have name > conflicts belong in /usr/bin. The scenario you describe won't happen.
One example: ls 1. Our implementation is in /usr/bin 2. GNU implementation should be in /usr/gnu 3. Another free (maybe GPLed, not mandatory) implementation should go ... where? An example of 3: busybox. Yes. I know. We do not want NOW another implementation of ls, but for future: What will be happen? I think, that this (at least a bit) off topic for this case. If so, we could stop this thread. :-) Regards. -- Marcel Telka
