Re: pbmplus/netpbm & /usr/bin
'James A. Robinson wrote:'
>
>
>Awhlie ago Ian Jackson and I discussed the problem of pbmplus sticking
>itself in /usr/bin/pbmplus (Bug 1115). Since most people seem to want
>netpbm over pbmplus, I am thinking Debian can just withdraw pbmplus,
>and substitute netpbm. In this case, we could merge it into /usr/bin.
>What do people think? The upside is that it will cleanly merge into
>the $PATH by being in /usr/bin. The downside is that it adds 128
>binaries to the directory. Since I already have some 500 binaries in
>/usr/bin, I don't see it as much of a problem, but what do others
>think?
I prefer to have it in /usr/bin/netpbm or somesuch. I hate not being
able to do ls in /usr/bin and adding ~100 programs there doesn't help.
All decent shells create a hash table of the $PATH, so it's no speed
decrease to add another directory to the path. The FSSTND suggests
having /usr/bin/mh. I take that as a good example that other packages
should follow (unless they are so basic to system functionality that
they belong in /usr/bin).
--
Christopher J. Fearnley | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS
cjf@netaxs.com (finger me!) | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society)
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf | Design Science Revolutionary
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf | Explorer in Universe
"Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller | Linux Advocate
Reply to: