Re: Misleading directory names

["Justin C. Sherrill" <justin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, September 28, 2010 6:58 am, PrzemysÅ?aw PaweÅ?czyk wrote:

> Doesn't it seem to you like being a bit untidy? And, btw, for how long
> "the legacy" will be going on...? With so much changes between 2.6.3
> and 2.8.0? Do you really think/know that "the legacy" systems will be
> kept running yet after new release (which one)?
>
> Manpower shortages define status quo, no doubt about it, as
> pkg_radd/pkg_search are still unchanged with amd64 links.

I appreciate what you're saying about having things be clear to users, but
this is the alternative to something that would be more confusing. 
'amd64' was hardcoded into a number of package tools, including early
versions of pkg_radd.  The choice is either leave it untidy with a note
about the reason for the directory, or break functionality for older
machines.

Someone was still running a number of 2.0 machines in an environment that
couldn't be easily upgraded, last I asked about this, so untidy is a
better choice, in this case.

The long-term answer that I would prefer is to not have people need to
navigate a package hierarchy at all, and instead have the appropriate
software selected automatically.  We're closer to that with the pkg_radd
tool.