Re: [kde] setting an /opt precedent, a twist

[John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu>]

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
>IMO.

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...

>/Micce
>
>

-- 
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.  
(ir-reve-rent-lations 13:17-19)
Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!