Re: Conversion to /package

> Sort of.  Ideally, the maintainer could produce two types of tarballs:
> one traditional, and one for slashpackage, complete with package/*
> scripts, etc.  Then users who like slashpackage could choose that
> tarball, and the maintainer could see what portion of the users prefer
> slashpackage.

 I'm afraid that just won't work. The numbers do not, and will not, play
in favor of /package.
 And as long as package authors do not distribute their software as
/package-only tarballs, /package loses its main benefit, i.e. reliability
of paths. If I can't hardcode, say, /package/host/gnu.org/bash/command/bash
in software that depends on bash, because on some systems it may be
installed as /usr/local/bin/bash or /usr/bin/bash or /bin/bash, then
I have no particular reason to use bash the /package way. I'll stick to
/bin/bash, and you will have to keep a /bin/bash symlink for the higher
software to work on your system.

 /package is not (only) a matter of personal convenience. It's a matter
of reliability and convention - and the convention is unreliable, thus
practically useless, if it's not shared by everyone.

-- 
 Ska