/packages/package_name itself is a symlink. It points to a real installation directory, which contains only files pertaining to that package.
In Richard's naming scheme, yes, in my naming scheme /packages would be the `default' to the place where the actual package is installed when you install a new system (a default it needed, but one can then use whatever location to put the actual content in). The difference is really just the naming scheme. However, I do not understand why the need for the symlink. The packages could be directly installed in /packages/package_name/ as a real directory, with the same result. What am I missing here? It is simply easier to move about symlinks instead of moving whole directories. Installing a new version of emacs would simply be a `ln -sf' instead of a `mv and cp'. > I don't insist on that name. However, I think the name "stow" is > not meaningful and should be replaced with something meaningful. > If not "packages", then "installed" or "installation". "packages" sounds better than stow, installed, or installation to me. Some alternatives: "software", "pkg", "sw" [this one could stand for both software and stow] But "packages" is already ok. We already had this discussion, not so long ago. http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-system-discuss/2005-09/msg00025.html A good idea for all people participating in the discussions here is to skim through the mailing list archives; they aren't that big. Happy hacking. _______________________________________________ gnu-system-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-system-discuss
