On Mon, 2015 Oct 19 23:13+0200, Christian Boltz wrote: > Hello, > > the aliases are a nice workaround, and the tunable might really solve > the problem, but the better solution is: get rid of the problem ;-) > > I'd propose to change the packages so that all distributions use the > same path. That would also mean we don't need funny hacks to adjust > the profile ;-) > > Just in case you can't decide which path to use - openSUSE uses > /usr/lib64/chromium/chromium [1] and it would be nice if we can also > use the profile ;-)
Having all distributions use the same executable paths would make our job easy, to be sure. But they're going to have good reasons for using different paths, and our own convenience as developers is not going to measure up to much in comparison. Are we going to ask openSUSE to put their (64-bit) files under /usr/lib/ instead of /usr/lib64/, when /usr/lib/ is intended for 32-bit files? They could just as well ask us (Debian) to put our 64-bit binaries under /usr/lib64/, even though we don't currently use the lib64 convention at all. I've never expected that we could get everyone to agree on a common set of paths, any more than we can get everyone to agree to drive on the same side of the road. But at least we can harmonize things between Debian and Ubuntu---there's little good reason for *that* inconsistency--- and retool the Chromium profile to make it easy to deal with typical path variations like openSUSE's. --Daniel -- Daniel Richard G. || sk...@iskunk.org My ASCII-art .sig got a bad case of Times New Roman.
