On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 03:03:47PM +0200, Oystein Viggen wrote: > Quoth Marcus Brinkmann: > > > Right. Same for /usr/X11R6/man and /usr/X11R6/include. It should be easy. > > <X11/whatever.h> is actually a bit of a different reason. There would > be no problem having .h files with the same names here, just like > <time.h> and <sys/time.h>.
What I meant is that there shouldn't be any clashing /usr/include/FOO that is also in /usr/X11R6/include/FOO. Using <X11/*> makes absolutely sense. > Anyway I think we can conclude that all _should_ be fine and dandy, but > I won't believe it until I actually see it. (I think I'll have to leave > work early today...) I couldn't believe it for /usr -> ., too, but it was really painless (except dpkg-shlibdeps of course ;) I think there were two conflicts, one was a link in ae and one was a link in cpio. > > IMHO, the LSB/FHS people should quiver in their boots because of the > > whole /usr/X11R6 excemption. We are just correcting some historical bugs > > here. > > Agreed. Separate subtrees are nice if you use make install and rm -Rf > as your packaging system, but really just a bit silly when we have dpkg > and rpm. Exactly. I use stow in /usr/local, for example (installing to /usr/local/stow/PACKAGE-VERSION). > > When we have some experience with it, I will try to build some Debian X > > packages with prefix "" (thanks, Roland) and a few symlinks corrected. > > Branden is also interested in this, so we might as well do some leg work. > > It would really be cleaner for us this way. > > Would Branden actually consider something to the effects of a > /usr/X11R6 -> . symlink? Let us first work out a patch, and then test it. Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
