Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 02:54:29PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> I have read it. Again, I ask when did *Debian* install commercial
> software.
What do you mean by this question?
Are you saying I can't download shareware from a web site and install
it using dpkg? I'm not sure when this started, but people are doing
it.
> I feel another bout of clue-battin' comin' on, oh yeah!
>
> Raul, you are aware that there are people within Debian that
> support the physical seperation of non-free and maybe even contrib
> from main? This is because they want to distance Debian (main) from
> the parts that are not Debian (contrib to some extent, non-free).
I'm one of those people. So, yeah, I imagine I'm aware of this.
This doesn't mean I'm opposed to non-free software, I just want it
to be treated properly.
> In short, those are not part of Debian. Debian supports commercial
> installations at the *user* request but Debian does not install
> commercial software.
Debian, the distribution, doesn't install. Users install. Debian
supplies.
Debian, the organization, does many different things. We have some
developers who install commercial software on their systems. Some debian
developers even use non-debian systems. I imagine that's not what you're
talking about, but it's hard to say for sure.
Debian, the software, does indeed install. However, like you indicate,
what's installed is at user request.
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter which of these options I pick, I still
can't figure out what you're trying to say. Maybe I'm dumb but you're
not making sense to me.
> > Or maybe you think that support stops with the specific examples
> > listed in the social contract -- that we should explicitly not
> > comply with some basic reasonable steps other people in the linux
> > community have taken to address the needs of people using commercial
> > software?
> No. I feel that the steps taken weren't well thought out and need
> further evaluation of why they were done (convenience) and how they
> should be done (technical accuracy and historical precedence).
I think maybe my biggest problem with what you have to say is that I
can't figure out what your point is.
I think, here, you're objecting to the existence of /opt/. However,
I don't see that /opt imposes any particular pain on either developers
or users. I see that you have an esthetic objection to it. I see your
repeated assertions that I'm talking nonsense. I don't see what you're
trying to get changed.
Perhaps you'd like us to revert the decision to move to FHS?
I agree that we're doing some aspects of that move too fast (mostly where
we're trying to work around a dpkg bug by doing something complicated
instead of just waiting for dpkg to get fixed before completing that
part of the transition). But it's probably too late to change now.
[We still could if a lot of developers object, but it's not an issue
with most developers -- and hopefully it never will be.]
I don't see that /opt/ requires much work to support. I don't see
how it makes our lives -- or the lives of our users -- any more
difficult than it already is. I don't see what problem you're trying
to solve.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've just received the information I was waiting
for so I'm going to step out of this discussion till some other day.
Have fun being snide at me...
--
Raul
Reply to: