This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [RFC] Change to subversion package: Move /usr/bin/* -> /usr/bin/subversion/* and add symlinks in /usr/bin
- From: "Max Bowsher" <maxb at ukf dot net>
- To: "Robert McNulty Junior" <bmj2004 at bellsouth dot net>, <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 01:18:43 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Change to subversion package: Move /usr/bin/* -> /usr/bin/subversion/* and add symlinks in /usr/bin
- References: <000001c466d5$eafea280$6601a8c0@BOBBYJR>
Robert McNulty Junior wrote:
> In order to be more Unix-like, /usr/bin does not have subdirectories.
> Look at the structure of Linux. I'm going to remove Windows Services for
> Unix and just use both Cygwin and Visual studio.
> Try and look into /usr/bin on Linux and see what Chris is talking about.
I've not seen any statements that unix *cannot* have subdirs in /usr/bin.
It generally doesn't, because to do so would defeat the mechanism of the
PATH envvar.
So, that really doesn't suggest that we shouldn't create subdirectories in
/usr/bin where appropriate.
I submit that it is appropriate in this case, because:
* The problem I'm trying to solve requires that the cygsvn*.dll files not be
in the same directory as python.exe
* It is an established Cygwin standard that DLLs go in /usr/bin
Therefore, a subdir in /usr/bin seems the best compromise of the above 2
points.
Max.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com [mailto:cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com]
On
> Behalf Of Max Bowsher
> Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 6:18 PM
> To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: [RFC] Change to subversion package: Move /usr/bin/* ->
> /usr/bin/subversion/* and add symlinks in /usr/bin
>
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 02:08:55PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>>
>>> I propose to relocate all the above into a directory
/usr/bin/subversion,
>>
>> Sorry, no. /usr/bin is a flat structure. It does not contain
>> subdirectories.
>
> What is the reason for this? I feel this specific case would be a sensible
> exception to the rule.
>
> Max.