From: Blaisorblade <bla...@ya...> - 2006-02-20 19:01:40
|
On Sunday 19 February 2006 23:04, Rob Landley wrote: > On Friday 17 February 2006 1:48 pm, Blaisorblade wrote: > > On Friday 17 February 2006 16:44, Jeff Dike wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 03:05:28PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote: > > > > For the future packaging: I do believe that Debian's defaults have > > > > been actually planned while uml_utilities haven't, so I like the idea > > > > of switching to Debian paths as defaults, and possibly using the > > > > current ones as fallbacks. > > > Yup, as long as they are not too Debian-specific. > > They tend to make more sense and adhere better to the > > FHS. /var/run/uml-utilities requires support from the distro, but having > > uml_net in /usr/lib is a correct idea, for instance. > I'm confused, why would you have executables in a shared library directory > instead of /usr/bin or some such? > (These are runnable elf binaries, not > shared libraries, correct?) Correct. We already have /usr/lib/uml/port-helper, Debian also has /usr/lib/uml/uml_net. Arguably (I dunno well FHS) the correct path should be /usr/libexec/uml, I guess... But I don't care as long as you take a meaningful decision. And as long as you start providing compatibility symlinks - if somebody says "let's be cleaner even if we screw some setups" that's wrong. -- Inform me of my mistakes, so I can keep imitating Homer Simpson's "Doh!". Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade (Skype ID "PaoloGiarrusso", ICQ 215621894) http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade ___________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger with Voice: chiama da PC a telefono a tariffe esclusive http://it.messenger.yahoo.com |