Petr Sabata (contyk@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > >> There is no reason not to put them in /usr/lib(64). That's where common > > >> binaries such as firefox, java, etc already reside. They all have magic > > >> env variables to define their root for scripts and > > >> symlinks/wrappers/alternatives in /usr/bin > > > > > > > > > In this case, though, there wouldn't be wrappers or scripts in /usr/bin. > > > > Ok looking at how convoluted we are having to get this package in.. > > what are the reasons to have it in Fedora? Would some other way of > > producing them having them available be there? Who is going to benefit > > from them being there? Etc > > > > Simply to make Fedora better. I'd like to make those available for our users. > There are currently no other packages relying on this set (or rc, to be more > specific) in Fedora. That could change in the future, though. The question is - why does having incompatible plan9 implementations of common commands make Fedora 'better', outside of "having more stuff"? Bill -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
