From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <40606498.1050200@swtch.com> From: Russ Cox User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031221 Thunderbird/0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] acme, rio workalike available in plan 9 ports References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:23:52 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3ea0cc56-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 a@9srv.net wrote: >// ...it would be nice to have multiple architecture >// dependent bin/lib directories as we have in plan 9... > >see also /usr/inferno (or the like). > > the problem isn't that i don't know what the structure should look like. the problem is that i don't want to do it. i find it annoying to have to type things like /usr/local/plan9/FreeBSD/386/bin/acme, and further it makes writing shell scripts impossible: #!/usr/local/plan9/FreeBSD/386/bin/rc isn't very portable! you'd have to have a shell script "rc" that ran the binary rc and then use #!/usr/local/plan9/rc/bin/rc or something like that. it's just disgusting. i don't have many environments where different architectures share a tree like /usr/local, so i don't worry much about it. if we had union directories (or even athena's environment variable symlinks) to hide the ugliness, i might feel differently. it's easy enough to change if you want to change it -- just edit /usr/local/plan9/src/mkhdr and change BIN and LIB. russ