Xorg version number change
volodya at mindspring.com
Sun Oct 10 18:27:27 PDT 2004
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Oh man, no. Why?
> For starters, I don't think this tree should even exist. But if we take
> it for granted that it must exist for some strange reason, why must we
> include the version number in it?
> GTK isn't installed to /usr/gtk+-2.4.
> GNOME isn't installed to /usr/gnome2.8.
> KDE isn't installed to /usr/kde3.3.
I often install kde like this:
And make a symlink: /usr/local/kde
This helps to use multiple trees at the same time. Admittedly I have not
done this in a while - KDE has gotten so stable that I rarely compile all
of it myself.
> xterm isn't installed to /usr/xterm-0.94.
> Apache isn't installed to /usr/apache-1.3.29.
Well, Tcl/Tk installs its shells like this:
Also, there is a packaging system called "stow" that allows to store
each package in a separate directory and only put symlinks to executables
in /usr/bin/ .
> To take the example of a proprietary UNIX suite par excellence; last
> time I checked, iPlanet installed to /usr/netscape, not
> /usr/netscape-iplanet-x.x.x. So, even in the most abhorrent case of
> there being a separate subdirectory under /usr (why? why? why?), there
> is no way known the version number should be playing a part.
> I don't think the separate directory under /usr should exist per
> default, but if it does, there is absolutely no reason to include the
> version number. I think it's just dumb. Really, really dumb.
> Daniel Stone <daniel at freedesktop.org>
> freedesktop.org: powering your desktop http://www.freedesktop.org
More information about the xorg