Joseph Kowalski wrote: > John Plocher wrote: >> > Joseph Kowalski wrote: >> > What would the counter proposal be? Everything I can think of has >> some >> > similar case that will not work. >> >> I see several alternatives: >> >> A) Put all the stuff in /usr/gnu, modify /etc/default/login to add >> /usr/gnu to PATH >> [+] new users see the combined environment >> [-] existing users that didn't set their PATH to include the >> initial >> system settings (PATH=$PATH:...) don't >> [-] all users that wish to interpose their own version are >> forced to >> explicitly set PATH to override the default > Do you remember the last time Rob went ballistic before he left? It > was over > login adding something to the users path. After that rucus, I think > this is a non-starter, > and should be. We simply shouldn't muck with PATH. Is there a link to the discussion that ensued? I'd like to read it. >> B) Put all the stuff in /usr/gnu, provide a pkg of symlinks into >> /usr/bin >> (etc - see my earlier mail) >> [+] new users see the combined environment >> [+] existing users do as well >> [-] The choice of installing the symlink pkg or not affects >> all users >> on a system, not just those that wish to interpose their >> own version. >> new users of systems without the symlinks, but with an >> alternate set >> of gnu utilities would have access to neither. > Since this is a per-system choice and not a per user choice, I thing > the negitive > far exceed those of the current proposal. > The alternatives are worse. If I'm forced to not instlall this software at all in order to make visible the version I want, then that is also not only 'per-system' but also runs a big risk of breaking dependencies of other software I do want to install.
At least if it is installed, but out of the way (the symlinks aren't installed) then software that depends on it can still function (it'll know where to look.) And the Admin is free to either educate users on what to change, or can update /etc/default/login, /etc/.login, /etc/profile or user's dot files. Plus by default the links package is installed, and only those who want this flexibility need to go looking for it. Sounds like the best of all worlds to me. > This is also fails my KISS tests. This would soon grow into a maze of > semantic-free symlinks. This initially looks like many links all from one directory to another. But yes I can see where the desire to link all over the place may arise in the future. This would have to be managed. -Kyle
