[desktop-discuss] Re: [companion-discuss] Re: [tools-discuss] Proposing /usr/gnu

[Stephen Hahn]

* Laszlo (Laca) Peter <laca at sun.com> [2006-05-01 10:17]:
> On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 07:39 -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> > Jeremy Teo wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > I've been following this thread from some time and I would just like
> > > to clarify the following:
> > > 
> > > 1. What is the key difference between /usr/sfw, /usr/gnu, and the 
> > > Companion CD?
> > > 
> > >> From what I understand:
> > > 
> > > /usr/sfw: A mistake, and now everything that is stable should be moved 
> > > into /usr
> > 
> > Everything that doesn't have the same name as an existing thing in /usr
> > should be moved.
> 
> So shouldn't everything in /usr/sfw that has the same name as an
> existing thing in /usr be moved to /usr/gnu (after officially
> defining it) or shouldn't we just redefine the role of /usr/sfw
> and not create /usr/gnu?

  Although I normally like to reuse stuff, I think we should introduce
  /usr/gnu as a precise way of identifying the "alternative commands
  environment" it represents.

  The future of /usr/sfw is governed more by the case Bart wrote last
  year, which I believe is proposing its long term emptying (but I
  haven't checked on any of the interface stabilities involved; if
  there's an Evolving or Stable (!) /usr/sfw/bin/foo, then we're going
  to have a symbolic link there for a while...).

  - Stephen

-- 
Stephen Hahn, PhD  Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems
stephen.hahn at sun.com  http://blogs.sun.com/sch/