From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Aug 10 07:27:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA22831 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 07:27:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ocean.campus.luth.se (ocean.campus.luth.se [130.240.194.116]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA22826 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 07:26:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from karpen@localhost) by ocean.campus.luth.se (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA12699 for hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:38:55 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Karpberg Message-Id: <199708101438.QAA12699@ocean.campus.luth.se> Subject: Re: /usr/dos for doscmd In-Reply-To: <19970810084631.HZ57983@uriah.heep.sax.de> from J Wunsch at "Aug 10, 97 08:46:31 am" To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:37:49 +0200 (CEST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31H (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk According to J Wunsch: > As Faried Nawaz wrote: > > > Hmmm... You are right... What is a good "semi-standard" place to > > put such things. I don't necessarily think that we should create > > another directory, or should we? > > > What does it try to install? How about somewhere in /usr/libdata? > > I also thought about /usr/libdata (or /usr/libexec -- it seems to be > an executable file, although not a Unix executable). > > The Makefile would currently break `make release', btw., since it > relies on X11 being installed. This should probably be made > automatically dependant on the actual configuration. Negative side > effect: the doscmd that ships with releases won't be able to do X11. It might be nice to have a directory where doscmd can play around, and where you can also place stuff related to it (like maybe default config file?). Wouldn't /compat/dos work? Or /usr/local/lib/dos or something? About relying on X11 being installed... Can't that be made checked at runtime? By using dlopen() instead of normal dependency, or so? /Mikael