Hi William, I find renaming 00basic to 50baselayout introduces some unexpected bugs. For example, plan9port installs env.d/30plan9 containing PATH=/usr/lib/plan9/bin. That PATH should come after baselayout because `ls`, `tar`, etc. of plan9 is not compatible with GNU coreutils. I wonder the reasoning behind "50" in 50baselayout. Making it 00baselayout will avoid these potential breakages. Yours, Benda
Ah-ha, because of bug 621334. So the number of plan9port had better to be tuned. I think an announcement in the mailing list is necessary to allow people to adopt their packages to >=baselayout-2.4.
Hi Andy and Anthony, From the baselayout-2.4, the system default paths are coded in /etc/env.d/50baselayout. Plan9 paths had better append to it because of name collisions against GNU coreutils. I think renaming 30plan9 to 60plan9 is the best way to move forward. What do you think? Yours, Benda
(In reply to Benda Xu from comment #1) > Ah-ha, because of bug 621334. So the number of plan9port had better to be > tuned. I think an announcement in the mailing list is necessary to allow > people to adopt their packages to >=baselayout-2.4. Well, it was actually due to bug 255695, but yes, the change was intentional to allow some packages to place their PATH ahead of baselayout.
(In reply to Benda Xu from comment #2) > Hi Andy and Anthony, > > From the baselayout-2.4, the system default paths are coded in > /etc/env.d/50baselayout. Plan9 paths had better append to it because of > name collisions against GNU coreutils. I think renaming 30plan9 to 60plan9 > is the best way to move forward. What do you think? > > Yours, > Benda sounds reasonable to me. i don't even know how we choose 30.
Committed with a revision bump. Thanks for all your responds.
