David.Comay at sun.com wrote: >>> I would be tempted to say that the architecture for /usr/gnu should >>> be that unless Sun provides a command with a similar name, programs >>> should always be installed into /usr/bin, not /usr/gnu/bin, except >>> in the case of those with a 'g' prefix - 'g' version in /usr/bin, >>> non-'g' version in /usr/gnu/bin. This way people aren't required >>> to modify their default environment in order to access the extra >>> tools available. Otherwise we're just reinventing the /usr/sfw/bin >>> problem but with a new name. >> >> I thought the proposal was for pretty much what you suggest. > > One notable exception is the proposal calls out that /usr/gnu is a > fully populated - namely, even if there is no conflicting name in > /usr/bin, there is still a component in /usr/gnu/bin (either > /usr/bin/prog symlinks to /usr/gnu/bin/prog or vice-versa.) This is > different from /usr/xpg[46] which are sparse directories and only > contain conflicting components. I missed this.
Why? (Its also different from /usr/ucb.) - jek3
