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 $PATH, or alias on a case by case basis as they prefer.
> > Am I the only one considering subdirectories to /usr/bin a bad thing?
> > Wouldn't it be much better putting stuff somewhere in /usr/lib/surfraw
> > and then add surfraw script to /usr/bin:
> > #!/bin/sh
> > SURFRAWBIN=/usr/lib/surfraw
> > CMD=${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.
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