https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707993
Christopher Meng <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|Reopened | Whiteboard| |NotReady --- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng <[email protected]> --- (In reply to František Dvořák from comment #10) > From the discussion linked in comment #1, it seems the least controversial > way would be to rename all commands to have some suffix (like "plan9-")? It > is about 50 commands, so it won't look so nice, but it would follow FHS > without exceptions... Do I interpret it correctly? :-) > > It is possible to add links (without prefix) to /usr/lib/plan9/. This would > allow users to use 9base directly by modifying PATH, and this would be even > compatible with Debian. 9base is not a library, so there shouldn't be a > problem with multilib IMHO. Or use man:alternatives(8) like java(not sure if it works, I haven't tested yet). However, what about these manpages? I think if we want to package some softwares which are identical with basic commands(coreutils), maybe a better solution is to treat DESTDIR as %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/$(PROJ) instead of %{buildroot} itself. Symlink actually is not a problem, but we may have better solution like alternatives command. If some packages have dependency on coreutils already, we should use a virtual package to satisfy, and virtual package can be set default as coreutils but can be switched to plan9 also BSD's, albeit conflicted with each other. Plus, plan9port(http://swtch.com/plan9port/) is also worthwhile for packaging, how to deal with that? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
