Re: Name clashes [Was: Intent to package: molecular biology programs
On Wed, Sep 23, 1998 at 04:52:43PM -0700, John Lapeyre wrote:
> >Also, if you do make a bunch of wrapper scripts or symlinks to the
> >original binaries, I think /usr/bin/genetic would be better for the
> >symlink farm than
> >/usr/lib/genetic -- they're binaries, after all.
>
> But already, there are many binaries that reside in /usr/lib . A lot of
> packages have support binaries that need to be in some directory owned by
> the package.
Usually binaries in /usr/lib aren't supposed to be run by normal users, and
if I'm not mistaken, there's never a reason to add one of those directories
to your path.
No one's ever made this rule, but it makes sense to me at least for all my
PATH directories to be in "bin" somewhere. /usr/games is the only exception
on my machine, and I've never quite understood why that's laid out the way
it is. Does FHS mention this at all?
(Note: I've seen lots of Solaris and other commercial Unix systems with
really weird directories in the path. But I don't think that's a good
thing, and that's another story...)
Have fun,
Avery
Reply to: