Kyle McDonald writes:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > A big question still remains: what is "GNU software" and should non-gnu
> > software go to /usr/gnu?
> >
> That (If I recall correctly) was one of the questions raised on the
> conference call and email thread. I was never clear why that was a good
> reason not to do it but it was a variable some didn't appear to like.
> Personally I'd only put in the FSF stuff - but that left another
> questions, that I think some didn't want hanging out there, to answer:
There is no need to pretend as though this were an open question: the
issue was specified _exactly_ in PSARC 2007/047 ("/usr/gnu"), and we
insisted that, as a directory in /usr/gnu, it must have a precise
definition. That is:
For the purposes of determining candidates for the GNU environment,
the GNU packages of the FSF/UNESCO Free Software Directory are
considered the authoritative list [2].
[...]
[2] Free Software Foundation, FSF/UNESCO Free Software Directory, "All
GNU Packages", 2006 (http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/).
That's the list. It's not a mystery.
> Where does the other stuff go? How big does a collection have to be to
> get it's own /usr/gnu equivalent? is there a /usr/misc that collects all
These things were *also* discussed at length during the case review.
> I don't know the answers to all therse questions. I beleive they are
> answerable, but I know Sun had a timetable, and probably didn't want to
> hold up that one ARC case to hashing out this bigger problem.
Untrue. We held that exact discussion.
> I think the /usr/gnu case decided only things that were GNU (FSF I
> bleieve) that *conflicted* with things already in /usr/bin were to be
> put in /usr/gnu. This means that you might find GNU tar under the name
> tar in /usr/gnu, and again under the name gtar in /usr/bin, but you
> wouldn't find gtar in /usr/gnu.
Correct.
> GCC would be found in /usr/bin I assume
> ince I know of no conflict.
It'd be reasonable to have GCC as /usr/gnu/bin/cc, if someone wanted
it.
> There are hard and fast rules inside of Sun, from experiences with
> customers (from what I remember) complaining when the default PATH had
> been changed in the past. No one was willing to discuss changing the
> default PATH in /etc/default/login.
This ground, as well as the long term effects of putting random open
source stuff in /usr/bin, has been trampled extensively.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the complaints that we're treating
/usr/bin as a dumping ground. I _wasn't_ in favor of the plan. To a
large extent, it's driven by earlier decisions -- most notably the
decision to use GNOME as a desktop.
However, it's long since been decided, and the discussion issues that
you've raised here -- repeatedly -- are really pointless. They don't
result in any useful changes or shine any light on the problem.
If you're really interested in changing this, rather than just
contributing to the debating society, then I urge you to put together
a project proposal. Propose something concrete that will alter or
abolish these decisions, and put something more to your liking in
place:
PSARC 1999/555 Getting with the Freeware Program
PSARC 2005/185 Enabling serendipitous discovery
PSARC 2007/047 /usr/gnu
Otherwise, given the previous clear decisions, our choices on these
new cases become quite clear. You might not like ImageMagick in
/usr/bin, but given our current direction, it's an entirely proper
and consistent decision.
For what it's worth, I've made my peace with those decisions. There
are aspects I don't like, but there's more that I *do* like, so even
if someone complains that having everything easily accessible is too
much like Linux, I'm not picking up that fight.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
