Hello, On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 02:34:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Santiago Vila wrote: > >If you want to make policy that /usr/bin should only contain executables, > >go ahead, make a policy proposal, > > There is no policy issue here -- the FHS is already entirely clear on > this; /usr/bin is for executables, which gettext.sh is not. > > >but none of you have answered to the > >question made by Frank Küster: > > Do you think we should simply not make any use of the POSIX feature > > that . $name will look for $name in the $PATH? Or do you think we should > > add a directory to PATH that is then dedicated to such shell snippets? > > Neither. Shell snippets should not go in PATH unless they also happen to > be programs. That's not the empty set, though it's probably close. > Meanwhile it's completely reasonable to make . look in directories other > than $PATH for shell snippets if such a feature is needed. Then it seems that placing gettext.sh in /usr/bin is even a policy violation. Therefore I will try to reopen the bug. I hope this helps, Jochen -- http://seehuhn.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature