[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:24:10AM +0100, Stephen Stafford wrote:
> 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

> > 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.

AFAIK, the FHS doesn't allow for creation of subdirectories under
/usr/bin/.  Please put the scripts under /usr/lib/surfraw instead -- if
you have to add a directory to $PATH anyway, one directory is as good as
another... except that one is sanctioned by policy.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpIzFXKJOErQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: