Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20020426153847.02c89b08@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:44:18 -0400
To: "Gerrit P. Haase" <freeweb AT nyckelpiga DOT de>,
   Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke AT gnu DOT org>
From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject: Re: ITP: netpbm
Cc: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To: <1971249499475.20020426203802@familiehaase.de>
References: <87r8l2pf8w DOT fsf AT peder DOT flower>
 <87r8l2pf8w DOT fsf AT peder DOT flower>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 02:38 PM 4/26/2002, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
>Jan schrieb:
>
> > Today I've taken a look at the netpbm package.  Pierre Humblet, who's
> > listed as Cygwin porter, is not considering to contribute it as Cygwin
> > package, but was fine with me packaging it.
>
> > I've only done a few quick tests, from ps->pnm->png.  URLs below.
> > Cast your votes now.
>
>Thumbs up from me;)
>
>BUT:
>Is it possible to put all the binaries into a separate directory
>and not to flood /bin ?
>
>There are 223 .exe files (the scripts and .dll not counted)!


I'm not sure why this makes more sense for this package than it would for
any package.  So, to me, this is not a requirement for generating this 
package or at least not at this time, unless somebody can point out how
this package would be considered "special" in this regard.

In general, I don't see the advantage to having many "bin" directories,
at least insofar as it moves toward separate bin directories for every
package.  It would just lead to the proliferation of directories in PATH 
or many complaints on this list stating "I installed X but when I run it,
it says 'X: command not found'!!!"  I'd rather avoid either of these 
alternatives.



Larry Hall                              lhall AT rfk DOT com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX