On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:29:52AM -0800, John Plocher wrote: > Marcel Telka wrote: > >Yes. I know. We do not want NOW another implementation of ls, but for > >future: What will be happen? > > When a proposal is made to do something that triggers this scenerio, > rest assured that we will discuss it and figure out the right thing > to do.
I would agree but, see below. > The key point here is NOT "who implemented it?", but rather "what > architecture does it expose?". [...] But the name "/usr/gnu" does seem to say something about who implemented it, thus the resulting questions (like "what about non-GNU but still GPL'ed utilities?" and "what about other FOSS that might conflict with things already in /usr/bin?"). I tend to agree with James that this smells much more like a new sort of XPG environment but for Linux compatibility, so that a name that reflects this rather than "GNU" seems better. OTOH, it's supposed to be "GNU/Linux" (according to some), so "/usr/gnu" is arguably pretty close. So clarifying whether /usr/gnu is intended to track any sort of standard or de facto standard or whether it's just for GNU utilities that conflict with /usr/bin, or whether it's for any GPL'ed utilities that conflict with /usr/bin seems in order. Nico --
