Re: "goals" for slink: FHS
Brian White writes:
> > I think we have agreed to move toward FHS compliance, starting with
> > slink. I have looked at the FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/), and
> > have a few proposals:
>
> I think that's a good idea, yes. We need to get this started soon, though,
> perferrably by the end of this week.
according to FHS the installation in /opt is allowed. Is it allowed
for slink as well?
The rationale for this are (again) name conflicts of packages. There
is a solution (first debianized package wins), but it's not ideal.
Could such packages be installed in their on /opt/<pkg>/{bin,lib,...}
hierarchy? Is it possible to let the site administrator and/or a user
decide, which packages are symlinked in the /usr hierarchy (or how the
system wide / user specific startup files are modified to take care of
a package in /opt?
Reply to: