Re: [kde] setting an /opt precedent, a twist
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Mikael Hedin wrote:
>John Galt writes:
> > In that case, wouldn't most non-free software really fit better in /opt?
>No. Not when distributed by Debian. We go in /usr only.
Technically, non-free is not distributed by Debian. It's "made
available". It IS third-party software, software that Debian really only
makes available because of demands of our users.
>Yes, if distributed precompiled by the producer, that is the bet way
So installers really ought to put their stuff into /opt where practicable
by this reasoning. Half a loaf is better than none, then Eray's
successors won't be able to question what Debian is doing with /opt: the
answer is "oh, that's where we have installers put their stuff...". I'm
cool with that...
>If shipped as source, /usr/local is also a good alternative, depending
>on the design.
So, would /opt || /usr/local for non-free be a better idea? I can go for
that as well: it lends itself to Debian distancing itself from non-free
without actually making it unavailable...
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath wisdom count the number of the BSD: for
it is the number of a man; and his number is VI VI VI.
Who is John Galt? email@example.com, that's who!