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

Re: [kde] setting an /opt precedent



On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 05:09:54PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> On Thursday 17 January 2002 16:21, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > You might note the discussion on debian-kde of late, where Eray is
> > attempting to set a precedent by installing KDE3 into /opt/kde3. Let me
> > first disclose my viewpoint: I think this idea sucks, as you can clearly
> > see from my postings.

> The answer I got when I asked "Why isn't /opt used in Debian ?" has always 
> been "/opt violates Debian Policy".

> However on James's message, I read the section and saw that there is no such 
> thing in neither the policy nor FHS. I'm only saying that installing packages 
> in /opt doesn't seem to violate the FHS in any way. As I explained in my 
> messages, "/opt violates Debian Policy" seems to depend on a certain 
> assumption that "add-on" means "non-free software supplied by third party 
> commercial vendors" whereas in the text of the FHS there is no such 
> implication. On the contrary it says distributions can install software in 
> /opt, just not touch a few reserved subdirs of /opt.

> One thing to discuss here would be whether FHS is right about that issue or 
> not. So feel free to send patches to FHS :)

No. The place to discuss that is on the FHS mailing list.  Don't waste 
the time of developers subscribed to this list because you disagree with 
the way the FHS is written -- no one here can change the FHS for you.

As for whether the FHS allows installing KDE in /opt, that certainly 
depends on one's definition of "add-on".  Consensus and precedent are 
both against you here.  Most KDE users don't view KDE as an add-on to 
their system at all; I imagine most KDE developers see things the same 
way.  This sounds like nothing more than change for change's sake.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpx6ut4b9jPS.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: