| Summary: | Wine not creating appropriate symlinks | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Andy <gentoo> |
| Component: | New packages | Assignee: | phoen][x <fisi.tilman.klar> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | x86 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Andy
2002-07-14 13:22:04 UTC
Why should it be? The path is set in /etc/profile.env - so it should be obsolete to link each binary to /usr, shouldnt it? Or do you have something else in mind? -phoen][x- When I originally reported this I hadn't yet rebooted the system and the wine binaries were not in the (active) search path.. ie. typing 'wine' gave a not found error. I've since rebooted and I now see that they do work OK, so I apologise for the incorrect bug report, but now I wonder: what is the criteria for deciding whether the directory goes in the search path or the binaries get linked to /usr/bin? If modifying the path is allowed, does the variable get re-read if it gets modified? Do all Gentoo packages handle this consistently? I think the main criteria is, that both packages wine and winex provide nearly the same binaries (fex, both have a binary that is called "wine") - if we would link them to /usr/bin, only one packages binary could be linked. Adding it to the path is more logical imho. Explain the "If modifying the path is allowed", please. Its late and i can barely think :) -phoen][x- |