On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:02:59AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 12:18:23AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: >>> Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 02:08:55PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I propose to relocate all the above into a directory >/usr/bin/subversion, >>>> >>>> Sorry, no. /usr/bin is a flat structure. It does not contain >>>> subdirectories. >>> >>> What is the reason for this? I feel this specific case would be a >>> sensible exception to the rule. >> >> Did you read the rest of this thread? Just mimic how other packages >> on linux do it. There is no need to invent a new way of doing this >> when there are already standard ways in existence. >> >> If you are using symlinks anyway, there is no reason why you need >> to create a directory in /usr/bin. > >I did read the rest of the thread - I presume the /usr/lib suggestion is >what you are referring to. > >My reluctance to do that is because the standard place to look for DLLs and >programs on Cygwin is /usr/bin. I don't understand why, because they need to >be in a subdirectory, they should transfer to the less obvious /usr/lib >tree.
The FHS dictates no subdirectories in /usr/bin and I think it's a good rule. Program specific subdirectories belong in /usr/lib. >Also, there are no packages on linux doing this that I can compare >with, as linux doesn't have to resort to workarounds to avoid a >deficient runtime linker. There are certainly a number of packages with symbolic links to /usr/lib, however. >I could put them in /usr/lib - but I would really like to understand why >people don't want them in /usr/bin - so far the only reason that has been >revealed to me is "linux doesn't do that", but as I have said, linux is >never in this situation, so that's not a very satisfying reason. Why didn't rpm just put its binaries in /usr/bin/rpm? Why didn't qt put them in /usr/bin/qt? Regardless of the reason, they put their packages in /usr/lib. So should you. cgf