| 1 |
I fail the point in that. It's the opposite of what makes sense, i.e. putting symlinks in /usr/bin to programs in /usr/blah/bin, which allows easy execution of said programs without having a very long PATH variable and allows easy management of applications as they can be completely contained under their own directory tree. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Nick |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:11:09 +0200 |
| 7 |
Thomas Weidner <yasea@×××.net> wrote: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> What about the following: |
| 10 |
> instead of heaving /usr/X/Y, /usr/X/Y is a symlink to /usr/Y/X. |
| 11 |
> so /usr/qt/3/bin whould be a symlink to /usr/bin/qt/3. |
| 12 |
> the advantage? all binaries/libraries/headers/... are under a common |
| 13 |
> subdirectory (/usr/bin,/usr/lib,/usr/include) and not spread in /usr. |
| 14 |
> This could be usable in network environments where |
| 15 |
> /usr/bin,/usr/share,... are mounted as NFS export. (and it's closer to |
| 16 |
> the FHS....). |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> bye Thomas |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> PS: sorry for bad english |
| 21 |
> PPS: i don't want another filesystem layout flame thread,it's just an |
| 22 |
> idea.... |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> -- |
| 26 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives