/usr/bin links are proposed not for multiple versions, but to avoid re-architecting Sun Studio in the short term. Our compilers and dbx find other files via relative paths within the directory structure. We do not want to impose our present directory structure on /usr. We intend to re-architect at some future time, but until then, symlinks in /usr are our answer.
Given that, the name of the directory we actually install in is almost irrelevant. We just want something descriptive to appear with "ls /usr". -- Dave F On 01/22/09 12:35, Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:17:33PM -0800, Chris Quenelle wrote: >> So I hear two issues here: >> >> 1. /usr/compilers is a bad name because it is too generic >> >> Please suggest another name to give us an idea of what you're looking for. >> I consider any reference to "Sun Studio" to be inappropriate because >> we're not delivering all of Sun Studio, or even all of the compilers >> from Sun Studio. Do you have other ideas for a good name? > > If there will be just one version, and that version will be invokable > through /usr/bin, then just deliver into > > /usr/bin > /usr/lib/sunstudio (or whatever) > > If we want the ability to use a "links package" to control what version > is available through /usr/bin, then: a) wouldn't that also be true of > GCC? and b) if the version can be selected via PATH, why bother with > links packages? > > If we drop the multiple versions (multiple versions -> /opt) and links > packages (there's only one version, after all) then we don't need > /usr/compilers, or /usr/foo or /usr/<whatever>. > >> 2. The project should anticipate delivering multiple versions >> of the compilers into Nevada, and/or the project should deliver >> multiple versions as part of this case. > > I'm happy with the "only one version in /usr, other versions in /opt" > answer. I think that's a fine answer that simplifies other things. > >> I think there has been a lot of discussion about this already, >> I really can't think of anything new to say on this topic, >> but I'll give it a try. > > Well, I just did think of something new to add. Namely that "one > version in /usr" should imply "no need for links pkgs" and "just install > into /usr/bin and /usr/lib." I.e., no need for /usr/compilers.
