Re: The naming wars continue... [u]

[Martin Schlemmer [c]]

On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 13:35 -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> Martin Schlemmer [c] wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 21:21 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > 
> >>Tonnerre wrote:
> >>
> >>>Salut,
> >>>
> >>>On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 02:43:54PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Having /usr/XnnRmm was a mistake in the first place.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>BSD has /X11R6, whilst I'd agree that /opt/xorg is probably a lot more
> >>>appropriate. If you want I can  take this discussion back to the X.Org
> >>>folks again, but I don't think it's actually going to change anything.
> >>>
> >>
> >>/opt/X (or /usr/X) is really what it probably should be.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > Except if I am missing something, it is (or was) to be able to
> > distinguish between versions that broke protocol compatibility ...
> > so except if the protocol will never change again, it should really
> > stay as is, and the apps should actually just start to use /usr/bin/X11
> > and /usr/lib/X11 that points to the latest or most stable instead of
> > the versioned directories ...
> 
> This won't get fixed on lkml.
> If you want to contribute in this area, try LSB/FHS etc.  & Please do.
> 

While I appreciate the thought, I should admit that I was only trying
to be the local smart-ass, so I have to decline to go on the LSB/FHS
crusade :/  Maybe one of the others before me would be so kind.


PS: I probably should point out that my use of /usr/bin/X11 and
    /usr/lib/X11 for the generic symlinks is not so generic, before
    I step on more toes ...


Thanks,

-- 
Martin Schlemmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part