Re: netpbm vs. pbmplus
'Ian Jackson wrote:'
>
>* Regarding /usr/bin/netpbm/*p[pgb]m* vs. /usr/bin/*p[pbg]m*:
>
>It should obviously be in the path by default. It's true that it has
>quite a few binaries, but not a huge number compared to the 560-odd
>that are in /usr/bin on my system.
>
>Since the alternative is trying to figure out a new scheme for
>dynamically modifying the default path, and then having a devil of a
>job getting it into every path-setting program, I think this is
>clearly the best solution.
But /usr/bin/mh already exists and has 32 files in it. The mh case is
explicitly mentioned in FSSTND. I like it because, I like to ls in
/usr/bin/{mh,netbm} to try to find which program I need. Perhaps the
postinst should warn that the programs aren't included in the default
PATH?
My opinion is any package with > ~20 files in /usr/bin should create a
subdirectory of /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: