ftp.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/04/26/15:58:02

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <3CC9B130.1000309@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:57:36 -0400
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
CC: "Gerrit P. Haase" <freeweb AT nyckelpiga DOT de>,
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke AT gnu DOT org>, cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: ITP: netpbm
References: <87r8l2pf8w DOT fsf AT peder DOT flower> <87r8l2pf8w DOT fsf AT peder DOT flower> <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20020426153847 DOT 02c89b08 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>


Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:


> I'm not sure why this makes more sense for this package than it would for
> any package.  So, to me, this is not a requirement for generating this 
> package or at least not at this time, unless somebody can point out how
> this package would be considered "special" in this regard.
> 
> In general, I don't see the advantage to having many "bin" directories,
> at least insofar as it moves toward separate bin directories for every
> package.  It would just lead to the proliferation of directories in PATH 
> or many complaints on this list stating "I installed X but when I run it,
> it says 'X: command not found'!!!"  I'd rather avoid either of these 
> alternatives.


Funny you should use 'X' as your variable.  Think /usr/X11R6/bin/...

I agree, we shouldn't worry too much about keeping /bin "clean" -- 
although distributions are moving towards putting stuff into /opt/pkg/* 
and making symlinks these days.

However, IMO netpbm, like XF86, is a special case -- how many other 
packages have 223 executable files and scripts?  ("KDE" doesn't count; 
the KDE environment consists of lots of different packages; netpbm is 
one integral unit (or at most 4).  And besides, doesn't KDE install into 
its own tree?)

--Chuck


- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019