Hi Danek, Are you suggesting that we install everything to /usr/gnu and symlink everything that is an interface and is non-conflicting to /usr? That's fine by me, but we need to be careful when identifying what is an interface.
Laca On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 11:32 -0800, Danek Duvall wrote: > The proposal to split GNU packages between /usr and /usr/gnu sits oddly > with me. I'm not sure I have a convincing argument against it, but I'll > say my bit (which applies only to commands and libraries, and nothing > else). I think it'll be a bit confusing to have only part of, say, > coreutils available in /usr/gnu. People looking there may wonder why we > only shipped part of it, or if they did discover the split, why we did > that. I think that presents a case for having everything in /usr/gnu. > > I think having these utilities in /usr/bin is useful, but my inclination is > to recommend that the canonical location is /usr/gnu, and that the entries > in /usr are for convenience only, and should be treated as Volatile. I > don't expect that we would often remove them in favor of a new, native > Solaris command, but I think it might be useful to reserve the right to do > so. > > It'll also probably be easier to say > > ./configure --prefix=/usr/gnu --sysconfdir=/etc/gnu > --sharedstatedir=/var/gnu > > and do a simple install than to use the same configure (or maybe > --prefix=/usr), and then cherry-pick bits of the built source tree or > install image to put in random places. > > The non-conflicting separation bit also raises the question of things that > aren't commands or libraries -- should they go into /usr if there's no > conflict? If, as per the current spec, some commands go into /usr and some > go into /usr/gnu, where do files destined for .../share or .../libexec (for > example) go -- where their utilities go, or into /usr/gnu, or into /usr, if > there's no conflict? Perhaps a bridge we don't need to cross yet: what if > there's no conflict for the utility, but there is for the support file?
