lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: The naming wars continue... [u]
From
Date
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

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:1.024 / U:0.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site