On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 02:37:16PM +0200, Oystein Viggen wrote:
> Quoth Marcus Brinkmann:
> > You need a /bin/X11 -> ., though. And the link /usr/include/X11 has to be
> > removed as there is now the real stuff, like with the lib example.
> Yep. I'll have to check for filename clashes in /bin, but as these
> would be just as silly as those in /lib, I hope there are none. IMO
> binaries with the same names in those two dirs would be a bug in the
> distribution anyway.
Right. Same for /usr/X11R6/man and /usr/X11R6/include. It should be easy.
> I hope there are no LSB/FHS people here, as they would probably be
> fainting from all the ugliness right about now... (Actually, as a Linux
> admin and distribution maintainer, I'm feeling a bit queasy myself. I'm
> trying to keep my hurd hat firmly planted on my head while thinking
> about this... ;)
You should try to look in a mirror, the hat suits you fine ;)
Actually, the symlinks are what is ugly. Note that the symlinks for
include/lib denote the *standard* place of the files. This is why
packages should reference those instead the physical location.
Packages must not contain files there because dpkg can't cope with
IMHO, the LSB/FHS people should quiver in their boots because of the
whole /usr/X11R6 excemption. We are just correcting some historical bugs
When we have some experience with it, I will try to build some Debian X
packages with prefix "" (thanks, Roland) and a few symlinks corrected.
Branden is also interested in this, so we might as well do some leg work.
It would really be cleaner for us this way.
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org firstname.lastname@example.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org email@example.com