From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Patrick Kelly" To: "'Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs'" <9fans@9fans.net> References: <17291D00-8580-474A-B398-8DCE626A9042@fastmail.fm> , In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:30:00 -0400 Message-ID: <000601cadc32$c9f51c80$5ddf5580$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] 9vx patch to read environment var PLAN9 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0178869e-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > I'm not so sure about /usr/lib or /usr/share. I'd tolerate both (I've = stopped caring about the unix filesystem hierarchy), but speaking as > a long-time Linux user they don't feel right, especially not = /usr/share. > If you do put them in they probably won't draw any trouble as just = hard-coded paths hidden in the source. >=20 > Is there any harm in putting in as many hard-coded paths in as might = be reasonable? Define reasonable. For me, that=E2=80=99s just 1 single spot. But it = seems the Linux people are very insistent on Freedom meaning do what you = want, even if it's against the build suggestions. I say stick to one hardcoded path, and make everyone else stop doing it = their own way, and stick to one simple, consistent solution.