Re: /usr/X11R6
<aqy6633@acf5.nyu.edu> (Alex Yukhimets) writes:
> > Sounds like a cool idea to me. Let's do it!
>
> Sorry, but NO!
>
> Let's do this experiments with Hurd, ok?
> There are some traditions of UNIX that I would hate to see broken.
Could you go into deeper detail why you value this particular tradition,
and why just leaving some symlinks wouldn't do?
I'm not decided on this myself. I'd like to hear some good arguments.
> Solution to put in /usr/X11R6 packages that put themselves there by default
> is the best solution in my opinion.
Personally, I don't like any policy that relies on "the defaults" from
an upstream package. That's wimping out on policy, IMHO. Slackware
does that. The end result is some measure of inconsistency (in
exchange for less load on the package maintainers).
If we have a well-defined policy, that also gives the upstream authors
some guidance on what to do.
> I am sorry again for sounding harsh.
I'll note that you are strongly opposed to moving where the binaries
are physically stored (and leaving symlinks in /usr/X11R6). Are
there some good technical reasons for your defence of the status quo
with the X packages? That way, if we stick with it, some of us will
be able to explain why.
Cheers,
- Jim
Reply to: