9base in Fedora?

[Bill Nottingham]

Petr Sabata (contyk at redhat.com) said: 
> > >> 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.

The question is - why does having incompatible plan9 implementations of
common commands make Fedora 'better', outside of "having more stuff"?

Bill