Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 02:57:07PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 2:27:36 PM, Michael wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 01:49:41PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> >> So why /opt and not /usr/opt with the possibility of /usr/local/opt?
>
> > Because unlike opt and local, there really isn't a difference between
> > /opt and /usr/opt -- except that one's a standard. Why not replace /home
> > with /users or make clocks run counterclockwise or redefine the meter?
> > Same reason -- we need a standard, arbitrary or not.
>
> That is my point!
You have no point. You're making much ado about nothing.
[snip]
> Well, so much for standards *just* for standards sake. Standards need a
> decent reason and I don't feel a new top level directory "just because" is a
> good enough reason.
The reason is that we need a place for ISV's to put software. People
have been using /opt for that purpose. There's no compelling argument
against /opt, so why change it? We put a lot of stuff in /usr "just
because" there's a tradition for it. Regardless of how many arguments
you trump up that /usr needs a new name (/foo, anyone?), you'd proably
be ignored because the current system works fine. The same goes for
/opt. "Just because" it pisses off Steve Lamb doesn't mean there's
anything wrong with it.
Mike Stone
Reply to: