Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Mark Phalan wrote: >> What about using the LSB >> (http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Specifications)? It has a section on >> commands and utilities. Would that buy us anything? i.e. having >> something like "/usr/lsb". > > /usr/lsb would be self-contradictory, since the LSB bans subdirectories > of /usr other than bin, lib, etc. > Actually if /usr/lsb were *fully* populated (mostly through softlinks?) exactly as /usr is on linux, migrators from linux might actually prefer it.
And it would leave Solaris free to keep it's /usr to it's traditional roots. (It might even be possible to undo the GNOME mistake. ;) ) -Kyle
