Subject: Re: /usr/X11R6 or /usr/X11 ?
To: Jim Wise <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Andrew Brown <email@example.com>
Date: 10/23/1997 17:41:48
> From: Jim Wise
>>On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Shyeah right. What am I gonna do with a gunrack? <g>
>> FWIW, I've NEVER seen X11 in /usr/bin/X11; it's always been /usr/X11/bin
>> (/usr/X11/include, /usr/X11/lib) for me.
>> Maybe that's just because I "grew up" inside an X11Rn directory with
>> /usr/X11 a symlink to wherever X11 happened to live (it was a devo
>> environment, what can I say?).
>Mmm. X11R4 used /usr/*/X11, and a lot of X11R5 installs stuck with this
>layout (the imake config stuff provided an option to do so, poss. as
i've seen it both ways, i always felt (fwiw) that /usr/X11(R6)?/* was
better, with a symlink from /usr/include to /usr/X(R6)?/include called
X11 to make compiles easier.
but seriously, /usr/X11(R6)?/* keeps it all segregated rather nicely,
and a few symlinks can put it where you expect.
actually having /usr/bin/X11 and /usr/include/X11, etc., as
directories mixes it in too much...
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
firstname.lastname@example.org (TheMan) * "ah! i see you have the internet
email@example.com that goes *ping*!"
firstname.lastname@example.org * "information is power -- share the wealth."