Re: Bug#192869: surfraw: surprized you added so many commands to /usr/bin

[Stephen Stafford <ssta@pol.ac.uk>]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:48:40AM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Stephen Stafford <ssta@pol.ac.uk> writes:
> 
> >> Which solutions are you suggesting?
> >>  
> >
> > The main one I think is good is having a /usr/bin/surfraw/ or similar that
> > users can add to their $PATH, or alias on a case by case basis as they prefer.
> 
> Am I the only one considering subdirectories to /usr/bin a bad thing?
> 
> Wouldn't it be much better putting stuff somewhere in /usr/lib/surfraw
> and then add surfraw script to /usr/bin:
> 
> #!/bin/sh
> 
> SURFRAWBIN=/usr/lib/surfraw
> CMD=${SURFRAWBIN}/$1
> 
> shift
> 
> exec ${CMD} "$@"
> 
> __END__
> 
> People who want to use the commands directly could still add
> /usr/lib/surfraw to their $PATH and people who doesn't want to polute
> their $PATH to use the package can just use the surfraw script. 

That's workable too.  I don't see the objection to putting them in
/usr/bin/surfraw though.  /usr/bin is where binaries are supposed to go.
/usr/lib is (mainly) for libraries, these scripts are not libraries.

However, your solution looks viable to me.  I really don't care hugely where
they go as long as they don't utterly pollute the namespace :)

Cheers,

Stephen