[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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: