Hi

Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> 
> The structure you suggest (putting everything belonging to one package in a
> single dir) seems reasonably to me, too. Using pkg_tools won't be a problem
> this way, but you'll have to provide some methods so users don't have to
> maintain a list of directories for $PATH, $MANPATH, etc. for themselves. The
> EazyInstall-scripts could act as a starting point, but the package-file used
> there uses quite the same format as the pkg_tools need, so some work would be
> necessary there to reduce redundancy. If we settle on some common formats (see
> below), i can work on this.
> 
> Furthermore, we should decide on some common directory and naming conventions
> for the packages' directories. I myself use /usr/local/<pkg>-<vers>, e.g.:
> 
> /usr/local/mtools-2.0.7
> /usr/local/X11R6
> /usr/local/netpbm-1mar94
> /usr/local/top-3.3beta
> etc.
> 
Hmmm, sorry for only dropping in now, the above structure is great for
humans, but what on earth is going to do to the poor shell that has to
parse the $PATH etc. to make the system work? What will the impact on
memory be, etc?

Or are we going some commercial o/s way and have a link farm to /usr/local/bin
- shudder.

IF however the above structure is just for BUILDING the packages for
installation - I hang my head in shame for not having the rest of the
thread and will promptly go and stand in the corner (alone, without so much 
as a teletype) for an hour.

et
-- 
Ernst J. du Toit (TED5)           Internet: ernstjdt@maxwell.ctech.ac.za
School of Electrical Engineering  BELTEL  : 175250 / Amateur Radio: ZR1ABB
Cape Technikon		          Voice: +27 21 460 3911 / Fax: +27 21 45 4161 
South Africa			  /* Hackers do it with bytes and nybbles ! */