Hi again,
I guess my proposal was a bit missunderstood.
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:16:25PM +0100, Manuel Prinz wrote:
> I'm specifically concerned about confusing users/admins. Let's assume that
> there exists such a place. There are two ways to put binaries in there: One
> would be to install all binaries there, the other to install just the ones
> that cause a name conflict.
The proposal was not about putting binaries at any other place than they
are now. I was just talking about symlinks (binaries can not kept in
/usr/share).
> With the first option, /usr/bin would be populated with symlinks which one
> first needs to follow, leading to the science bin dir.
No, the contrary: /usr/bin has the usual files, the symlinks will be stored
in the science dir.
> In there, there is
> basically no mapping to the package, so one needs to look which binary
> package puts files in there. This is just confusing. With the /u/l/$package
> solution, it's directly clear from the symlink in /usr/bin which package
> the binary belongs to.
I'm not against the /u/l/$package solution - I just would like to add
the *additional* link.
> With the second option, the above problem is not that much of deal, but I'd
> find it confusing to have some binaries in /usr/bin and some in the science
> bin dir. It's a kind of "mix".
Again this was not the suggestion. All binaries stay were they are.
> Re-reading my last email, I found the tone more harsh than expected.
I did not regarded it harsh - I probably was to short in explaining what
I regarded as a potential workaround which leaded to the
missunderstanding.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110205225516.gb12...@an3as.eu
