Chris, > I don't think I ever gave an opinion on the /usr/bin vs. > /usr/X11R6/bin.
I'm going to dig up your message when I get home. I *know* that you did say to use /usr as the prefix. > My preference is that all official X stuff goes in > /usr/X11R6/bin but that seems to be counter to the way most modern > distributions do things. I don't care what the prefix is, just so long as I can blame someone else :) I believe the main problem with using /usr/X11R6 as the prefix is that /usr/X11R6/bin is not in most users PATH, nor is /usr/X11R6/lib in their lib search path, nor is /usr/X11R6/include in their includes search paths... etc. It may end up being a lot of trouble to use anything other than /usr as the prefix. Harold Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 02:41:03PM -0400, Harold L Hunt wrote: > >>One other thing: please keep the lesstif cygwin packages (on > >>sourceforge and the 'official' cygwin-XFree86 package) synchronised: > >>i.e agree on same prefix etc. Maybe the sourceforge page should point > >>to the official cygwin-XFree86 package in the future. I do not want to > >>end up with mwm.exe in both /usr/bin and /usr/X11R6/bin and libXm.a, > >>libMrm.a and libUil.a in both /usr/lib and /usr/X11R6/lib. > > > >This is sort of a 'growing pain'. We'll be following the Cygwin standard of > >using the /usr prefix. I had discussed this on the list with Chris Faylor > >and others and the conclusion was to use /usr as the prefix. We will only > >change this is some difficult problem arises for which there is no other > >solution than to change the prefix for all the XFree86 packages. > > I don't think I ever gave an opinion on the /usr/bin vs. > /usr/X11R6/bin. My preference is that all official X stuff goes in > /usr/X11R6/bin but that seems to be counter to the way most modern > distributions do things. > > So, I don't know that we have an actual policy. > > cgf >
