Darren J Moffat writes: > Marcel Telka wrote: > > No. Non-gnu should be in /usr/sfw. But sometimes non-GNU becomes GNU > > (FSF adopt it as a GNU software). > > Nothing new should IMO be getting added to /usr/sfw it was in hindsight > not the best way to resolve an issue that no longer exists.
Agreed. > Are people reading the whole set of case material before commenting or > just looking at the draft man page gnu(5) ? I think they're reading the whole set. The conflict is over the definition of /usr/gnu, and what it means to add this to your path. First of all, there exists free software that is not part of the FSF or even under GPL. Some of it is included in GNU-ish operating systems, such as various distributions of Linux. Worse, some software becomes GPL'd or part of the FSF over time. (And, presumably, other parts could leave.) If such software conflicts with existing things in /usr/bin, where does it go? The contention by the project team seems to be that objects that are free software but aren't exactly GNU will still go in /usr/gnu. Though perhaps defensible, that seems a bit strange, and is leading to a number of questions. I *think* the problem is with the definition of /usr/gnu. Is it really "stuff you'd expect to see in /usr/bin on a Linux system, but that can't be right there on Solaris because it'd wipe out something we already have?" That is: is it analogous the "to be XPG4, add this to your path" story, but with "Linux" instead of "XPG4?" Or is there some other reference point that makes sense? -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
