[openbeosnetteam] Re: our package
- From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosnetteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:16:44 +0200 CEST
"Waldemar Kornewald" <Waldemar.Kornewald@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > I think the ease or porting new versions is no reason to disregard
> > BeOS' standard locations to put files like these. IOW files like
> > .bashrc or .vimrc don't belong where they go now - they belong to
> > B_USER_SETTINGS_DIRECTORY.
> > And such, the files you mention would go into a
> > B_BEOS_SETTINGS_DIRECTORY - which doesn't yet exist; in any way, it
> > should be B_BEOS_ETC_DIRECTORY in this case :)
> > To properly port a piece of software, changing its paths to match
> > those
> > of BeOS is a requirement.
> We can easily change it from "/etc" to B_BEOS_ETC_DIRECTORY, but I
> would not like to change libbind to also check B_USER_ETC_DIRECTORY
> if there is no good reason for it. I would prefer if libbind just
> compiled on
> our system without any changes. The more we change the more problems
> will we have with porting new versions.
Every system has different standard directories. If you port some
software over to BeOS you should honor these locations - I think that's
a pretty good reason already.
I think it's unlikely that the next libbind.so version changes the way
they load their settings files; I don't really see the complication of
updating then. But anyway, things like these are part of the
responsibility of the maintainer of ported software.
Be already did a bad job at this, and I see no reason to copy that.
Anyway, since we're currently talking about packages made from our
networking stack, I think it would be reasonable to just change the
location to something that won't hurt the potential user of that
package.
Bye,
Axel.
Other related posts:
