I don't see the point of having /usr/gnu/gcc4/bin/* and then having
symlinks to /usr/gnu/bin/*. Why not just put them directly in
/usr/gnu/bin/* ?
We don't have gcc 4.x at this time anyway so it seems really strange to
have a gcc4 subdir introduced by something that isn'g gcc 4.x.
As others have pointed out the 'g' prefix should NOT be used in
/usr/gnu/bin/ that is only appropriate for /usr/bin & /usr/sbin and ONLY
when there is an already existing thing that exists by that basename
that can not be fully replaced without introducing a compatibility
problem. /usr/bin/tar vs /usr/bin/gtar vs /usr/gnu/bin/tar is classic
example of this.
For this case /usr/gnu/bin/gstrings is wrong it should be
/usr/gnu/bin/strings. The whole point of /usr/gnu/bin is that things
appear under their "native" names. The same applies to some of the
other commands that this case delivers.
As specified I do NOT approve of this case, I would like to see the
following:
/usr/gnu/bin/* with the "native" names
/usr/bin/g* for ONLY those that clash
/usr/bin/* for those with no clash
elimination of /usr/gnu/gcc4/
This is on the assumption that GNU binutils 4.3.x is NOT incompatible
with the gcc we currently ship. If GNU binutils *is* incompatible with
the gcc we currently ship then IMO this case needs to wait and be part
of a future case that upgrade gcc as well, otherwise I don't see the
point in shipping the newer binutils if we ship the older compiler
(unless the newer binutils are compatible with the compiler we ship).
--
Darren J Moffat
