On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:36:10AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
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"?
You could say the same about most of Fedora packages.
'Better', giving people tools to use, to choose from. Fedora isn't one of
those
pure, minimalist distributions anyway. We have a lot of alternatives for a lot
of stuff. Some do more, some do less, some do the same but differently.
If that's good or not is a matter of opinion and the distribution goals.
And by 'incompatible' you mean some scripts depend on GNU coreutils and
therefore can't run with POSIX-only or Plan9 tools, I suppose. That's sad
but not a fault of those other tools.
--
# Petr Sabata