From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <010b16eca074d6f280559da640c69e60@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:33:28 -0500
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: Re: [9fans] dir tree Qs
In-Reply-To: <14ec7b180608170708t17e9b47bi35fa28f7dfa20a18@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a1f9b49e-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

why would one never keep a library in one's home directory?  keeping the 
structure the same would make it easier to bind $home/$cputype 
before/after /$cputype.

$0.02
- erik

On Thu Aug 17 09:08:52 CDT 2006, mirtchovski@gmail.com wrote:
> /386 contains much more than just binaries, while $home/bin/386
> contains only that: binaries.
> 
> i think the rationale was that having a directory for each
> architecture back when 386 wasn't the dominant one would clutter
> $home. we rarely spend any time in / after all. besides, Plan 9
> shouldn't expose the architecture to the user right at the front line:
> what the current arch is was not meant to be something we ought to
> care about.
> 
> i could be wrong, of course.