Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 09:23:13AM -1000, Joseph Kowalski wrote: > >> In the case of the various Linux flavors, there is no absolute spec. >> (The LSB may become one, but its a work >> in slow progress.) The best we can strive for is a compromise that >> minimizes porting effort and makes the >> transition of applications and fingers from multiple Linux based >> environments to Solaris as easy as possible. >> Perhaps if/when the LSB is of sufficient quality we could consider a LSB >> enviroment, but so far as I know >> there is no current demand for this. A number of "LSB qualified" >> applications would seem to be necessary >> before such an environment would be worth the effort. >> > > I think this is an excellent argument for saying that it's too early to > agree to a good name for what is proposed to be /usr/gnu. > > Therefore it might be better to go with /usr/opt/gnu-coreutils and other > /usr/opt/gnu-*, but still add non-conflicting paths to /usr/bin. > > Nico > I don't think so, but its all crystal-ball'ish at this time.
I don't think the LSB will ever reach this state. Nor, do I think the various Linux based distros will line-up to it enough if it did. (Its just my opinion, but its a very spotty document being pushed by a fairly small camp.) Bottom line is I don't think planning for the possible future LSB environment is a truly good idea. Besides, I think we need to remember something I said many e-mails ago, that the name conflict issues strongly tend to be limited to alternate implementations of the core utility set. Because of the preference by Linux distros to lump everything in /usr/bin, there don't tend to be conflicts in other areas. - jek3
