Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 03:47:34PM -0800, Danek Duvall wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 05:33:45PM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 06:28:32PM -0500, Dale Ghent wrote: >>>> On Jan 22, 2009, at 4:17 PM, David.Ford at sun.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> May I suggest /usr/suncc (short for Sun >>>>> Compiler Collection). >>>> I like that. >>> I think I just wrested a concession, that a directory under /usr is not >>> needed. A directory under /usr/lib, with symlinks from /usr/bin, should >>> do until the i-team is able to spread the bundled bits into the correct >>> locations. >> Except that in a parallel thread, Chris told us that there's a bin >> directory that users will have to access, as not all things that are there >> will have symlinks in /usr/bin (such as "version"). Yes, that could be >> /usr/lib/suncc/bin, but is that better than /usr/suncc/bin? > > Oh well. I tried :) So count me in favor of /usr/suncc.
I'm also happy with /usr/suncc, except that the opposite argument to not using studio comes into play in the future when more rest of what is now Sun Studio does get bundled into /usr. Naming is hard, in particular because marketing names change over time (as the compilers team(s) know all too well!). Why not simply /usr/spro/$VERSION yes it isn't the full thing but even in /opt/SUNWspro/$VERSION it is common not to have a "full" install (or at least it used to be when the components each cost money and were licensed separately). Or /usr/lib/spro/. As long as it isn't /usr/compilers and at least hints that is is the Sun developed compiler I'm happy. -- Darren J Moffat
