Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Kyle McDonald <Kyle.McDonald at bigbandnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>> There may not be a single distribution, but due to the LSB, I bet all
>> the tools we are discussing here are located in the same place on all
>> (or the vast majority) linux distributions.
>>
>> But if both /usr/gnu and /usr/linux are the wrong names, how about
>> /usr/oss??
>> (I'm guessing /sur/fsw - for Free Soft Ware - is too close to /usr/sfw.)
>>
>
> Which program should win /usr/oss/bin/make as name?
>
> BSD's make?
> My smake?
> GNU make?
>
> let oldest program (see my order) or what?
>
> Which program should win /usr/oss/bin/tar?
>
> star's "tar" CLI emulation?
> GNU "tar"?
>
> There are many others but make & tar seem to be the most popular conflicting
> names.
>
> Let me also name cpio, pax, .....
>
> J?rg
>
The existing logic is that the owner of the *specification*, not the
owner of the implementation should
be the name. In the case of the FOSS world, these are usually the same.
The scary part is that we could end up with /usr/schilling by this
logic. :-)
There actually is a little substance to this. If this should be widely
used, do we really want to pollute
/usr with a lot of alternate subdirectories? These really don't fit the
semantic of "opt", so maybe we
should consider /usr/alt-env/{gnu,schilling,...} or something similar.
I'm just considering this option
and am not sure its a good idea, so I'm just throwing it out there.
Maybe this is overkill, because
most FOSS contibutors aren't working on alternate implementations of
core utilities - there are only
so many GNUs and Schillings in the world (no offense Jeorg!).
- jek3
