Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
X-Apparently-From: <earnie?boyd AT yahoo DOT com>
Message-ID: <3A9CF401.64A92AAE@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:50:09 -0500
From: Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com>
Reply-To: Earnie Boyd <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: fpTeX and Cygwin
References: <20010226175349 DOT R27406 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <000f01c0a067$0c9ceb60$3bc1c13f AT holstein-mobile DOT ASPECTDV DOT COM> <20010226225233 DOT A8069 AT redhat DOT com> <3A9B3572 DOT 8CB71CB5 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20010227001835 DOT A8605 AT redhat DOT com> <20010227111102 DOT B27406 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20010227103511 DOT A10525 AT redhat DOT com> <3A9BD449 DOT C4B936CB AT yahoo DOT com> <3A9C8D51 DOT 50941388 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"Charles S. Wilson" wrote:
> 
> Earnie Boyd wrote:
> >
> > The FHS would have these installed in a /opt/package-version directory
> > with symlinks in /usr/local/bin and etc..  I would suggest that we could
> > go with this for the contrib directory.  However, my preference for this
> > is /opt/package/version where version is a subdirectory of package, it's
> > more esthetically appealing to my eyes.
> 
> Arrghh.  This is pedantic, IMO.  Let me ask this question: Debian has a
> large number of packages, all supported by different maintainers.  Does
> apt-get install *all* of these packages into some inane heirarchy under
> /opt/ and then build symlink farms from /usr/local/?  If some packages
> go into /usr, which?  How is that decision made?  Who are the
> "annointed" Debian developers whose packages go into /usr?
> 
> I admit some self-interest in my disagreement with this /opt/package
> thing.  I am not really interested in rebuilding, repackaging,
> retesting, re-releasing-for-test, re-wait-for-comments,
> re-announce-as-updated, and
> RE-get-bug-reports-that-should-have-come-three-steps-earlier, for "my"
> dozen-or-so packages for NO real gain.  Nothing is broken, except a
> desire to conform to a standard developed for needs other than those of
> cygwin.  No thanks.
> 

Well, the discussion is a discussion of standards for Cygwin.  Since the
discussion involved changes to the current Cygwin norm I mentioned the
FHS because it is already a well thought out and well thought of
standard.  If that enrages you, sorry, however no one has yet asked
anyone to change anything.

Now, should a decision be made to configure the packages in contrib to
be installed in /usr/local or /opt/package-version then I would expect
that any maintainer contributing packages to alter the package only when
need arises and not on a full scale overhaul.

Earnie.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple