Rainer Orth wrote: > Hi George, > >> Rainer Orth wrote: >>> George Vasick <George.Vasick at Sun.COM> writes: >>> >>>> I am upgrading m4 to the latest stable version. Summary of changes: >>> [...] >>>> 5) removed /usr/sfw/bin/gm4 link (/usr/sfw is obsolete) >>> True insofar as no new software is to be delivered into /usr/sfw, but I >>> thought compatibility symlinks were kept in place. Can you point me to a >>> document stating otherwise? >> The only reference I have is from the internal "Package Delivery >> Project" document maintained most recently by Jim Walker: >> >> 3.6 Component Location Guidelines >> [...] >> * /usr/sfw is obsolete and should not be used > > That's what I said: it should not be used for new deliverables. There must > be an ARC case for obsoleting /usr/sfw, but due to the unavailability of > the ARC caselog archive, I cannot check this right now ;-( It should be > easy to find inside Sun, though. > >> I do not know of a document that says how and when we are supposed to >> end of life /usr/sfw. I did notice that /usr/sfw/bin is no longer >> included in the default PATH on the 2008.11 release of opensolaris so I >> thought removing the /usr/sfw/bin links would be appropriate as we >> upgrade the packages moving forward. > > I don't think Indiana/the OpenSolaris distribution is relevant here. Until > it is ARCed, it is only an experimental project and certainly not normative. > >> If it is important to keep the sfw links, I can easily put it back in. >> >> What do think? > > Unless you have evidence to the opposite, I think compatibility remains an > importatant goal.
OK, I found several cases of things being moved out of /usr/sfw/bin to /usr/bin or /usr/gnu/bin, but no case removing /usr/sfw/bin. I restored the link. Thanks, George > > Rainer > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Rainer Orth, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University
