Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/04/26/15:58:02
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
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?)
- Raw text -