On Jan 27, 2008 9:17 AM, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 07:25:23AM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote: > >On Jan 24, 2008 9:10 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Moving arch to coreutils makes sense to me, but let me look at > >> util-linux 2.13 before I commit to anything. > >> > >While you are at it, if/when you do another release of util-linux, > >please update the cygport to install more.exe in /usr/bin, rather than > >/bin (util-linux arch.exe is also doing this, too). It's superficial, > >but it's probably a good idea for consistency's sake, since /usr/bin > >== /bin. > > Uh, no. This doesn't matter at all. There is no reason to bother with > this. >
Actually, it does matter. The cygcheck utility believes there is a difference. For example, if I were to install the latest testing version of coreutils, I would have no way of knowing that it just clobbered arch.exe based on the information given by cygcheck. What if Eric decides not to distribute it? Or I decide to revert back to the stable version? Well I just got left with an inconsistent system. Just like installation to /usr/man and /usr/info is discouraged, so should installation to /bin and /lib. As the number of packages grows, it is going to be tougher to catch this kind of thing. To persist with packaging inconsistancies is not logical, especially given the nature of our /bin and /lib. In any event, since he uses cygports, this is merely a simple one line fix to the cygport file. I should think it would be no bother at all, really, and better safe than sorry. If he doesn't want to do it, then fine. Cheers, Nicholas
