On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:36:10AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > 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"? > You could say the same about most of Fedora packages. 'Better', giving people tools to use, to choose from. Fedora isn't one of those pure, minimalist distributions anyway. We have a lot of alternatives for a lot of stuff. Some do more, some do less, some do the same but differently. If that's good or not is a matter of opinion and the distribution goals. And by 'incompatible' you mean some scripts depend on GNU coreutils and therefore can't run with POSIX-only or Plan9 tools, I suppose. That's sad but not a fault of those other tools. -- # Petr Sabata
Attachment:
pgpa3ICvU7CSX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
