9base in Fedora?

[Petr Sabata]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:59:27AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:35, Matthew Miller <mattdm at mattdm.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 09:28:02AM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >> There is no reason not to put them in /usr/lib(64). That's where common
> >> binaries such as firefox, java, etc already reside. They all have magic
> >> env variables to define their root for scripts and
> >> symlinks/wrappers/alternatives in /usr/bin
> >
> >
> > In this case, though, there wouldn't be wrappers or scripts in /usr/bin.
> 
> Ok looking at how convoluted we are having to get this package in..
> what are the reasons to have it in Fedora? Would some other way of
> producing them having them available be there? Who is going to benefit
> from them being there? Etc
> 

Simply to make Fedora better. I'd like to make those available for our users.
There are currently no other packages relying on this set (or rc, to be more
specific) in Fedora. That could change in the future, though.

-- 
# Petr Sabata
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110525/e00680b2/attachment.bin