Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: The naming wars continue... [u] | From | "Martin Schlemmer [c]" <> | Date | Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:35:07 +0200 |
| |
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] | |