Re: GNU System Explanation

[Alfred M\. Szmidt]

   /packages/package_name itself is a symlink.  It points to a real
   installation directory, which contains only files pertaining to
   that package.

In Richard's naming scheme, yes, in my naming scheme /packages would
be the `default' to the place where the actual package is installed
when you install a new system (a default it needed, but one can then
use whatever location to put the actual content in).

The difference is really just the naming scheme.

   However, I do not understand why the need for the symlink.  The
   packages could be directly installed in /packages/package_name/ as
   a real directory, with the same result. What am I missing here?

It is simply easier to move about symlinks instead of moving whole
directories.  Installing a new version of emacs would simply be a `ln
-sf' instead of a `mv and cp'.

   > I don't insist on that name.  However, I think the name "stow" is
   > not meaningful and should be replaced with something meaningful.
   > If not "packages", then "installed" or "installation".

   "packages" sounds better than stow, installed, or installation to
   me.  Some alternatives: "software", "pkg", "sw" [this one could
   stand for both software and stow]

   But "packages" is already ok.

We already had this discussion, not so long ago.

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-system-discuss/2005-09/msg00025.html

A good idea for all people participating in the discussions here is to
skim through the mailing list archives; they aren't that big.

Happy hacking.