On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 10:58:49AM -0600, Eric Schwartz wrote: > email@example.com (Bart Schuller) writes: > > The only sane distinction to make is between .debs, which try to conform > > to as many Debian policies as possible, and non-debs, which you untar > > into /opt. > > > > A .deb unpacking into /opt has no added value to me, it will just help > > to confuse. > > I confess to not getting the benefit of this. To me /opt says > "Third-party stuff". If I want to drop random non-packged stuff on my > system, that's what /usr/local is for. I see no problem with a .deb > dropping stuff in /opt, if that's where FHS says its contents ought to > go. There are two major benefits to using /opt: 1) Namespace. You don't have to worry about a third party deb not tracking collisions with new Debian packages. 2) Exportability. /usr should be NFS-exportable, possibly sans /usr/local, without encumbrance. Any software, whether it has dpkg information or is packaged in a .deb or not, that has a one-license-per-machine type policy MUST NOT contaminate /usr. The FHS is fully correct in specifying /opt for third-party-vendors. -- Zed Pobre <firstname.lastname@example.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <email@example.com> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
Description: PGP signature