Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was:
Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 2:32:10 PM, paul wrote:
> The only ideological hype in this discussion has been from Mr Lamb.
Excuse me? Have you completely skipped all of the messages where I am
explaining why the division of a file system isn't as important on a packaged
system as it is on a roll-your-own system? Also the various messages on why
different file structures should and should not be there?
> Why is placing third-party bianary packages in /opt a bad thing?
Because /opt is a duplication of an existing file structure which can
serve the purpose more than adequately. What people are asking me is "what is
wrong with /opt" when I am pointing out is that there is nothing wrong with
/usr/local, or /usr/opt with a /usr/local/opt counterpart. I do not see the
need of a whole new top-level directory.
If there is no need, if the sole reason is for ideological "coolness" then
it leads to bloat and bloat is a bad thing.
This is why I pointed out that *I* personally like having /ftp, /www and
/misc for very valid reason. However, the functionality for those trees are
just as easily obtained within the basic structure and even though *I* think
it is ideologically cool I would not support their inclusion into and standard
any more than I do /opt for the very same reasons I oppose /opt.
> What makes the FHS a bad standard?
I didn't say FHS was a bad standard. Someone retorted to my disdain of a
new top-level directory with "Read the FHS." Just because /opt is in the FHS
doesn't mean /opt is automatically kosher. It was a statement akin to the
various religious people telling me to "read the bible" when I doubt their
god. It assumes that I am going to give the document some slack I would
otherwise not give them.
I then stated that I am critical of /opt and by extension, critical of
/opt's inclusion into FHS. Granted, my wording was vague on that point.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reply to: