Petr Sabata (contyk(a)redhat.com) said:
> >> There is no reason not to put them in /usr/lib(64).
That's where common
> >> binaries such as firefox, java, etc already reside. They all have magic
> >> env variables to define their root for scripts and
> >> symlinks/wrappers/alternatives in /usr/bin
> >
> >
> > In this case, though, there wouldn't be wrappers or scripts in /usr/bin.
>
> Ok looking at how convoluted we are having to get this package in..
> what are the reasons to have it in Fedora? Would some other way of
> producing them having them available be there? Who is going to benefit
> from them being there? Etc
>
Simply to make Fedora better. I'd like to make those available for our users.
There are currently no other packages relying on this set (or rc, to be more
specific) in Fedora. That could change in the future, though.
The question is - why does having incompatible plan9 implementations of
common commands make Fedora 'better', outside of "having more stuff"?
Bill