Re: [kde] setting an /opt precedent
On 18 Jan 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>Hamish Moffatt <email@example.com> writes:
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:22:43AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> > Hamish Moffatt <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > > It has always been Debian policy that we don't use /opt. Surprisingly
>> > > this is not actually written into the formal Debian policy, which may
>> > > be an oversight.
>> > I think it's been taken to be required by the FHS. But I have no
>> > objection to adding it to policy explicitly too.
>> At a glance, the FHS says distributions may use /opt. In practice it
>> conflicts with allowing the local admin free reign in the same
>> directory. Maybe this needs to be spelled out.
>There's no good reason for Debian to use /opt; there are many good
>reasons to leave it empty.
I've said this in another subthread, but it may have slipped under some
Radars, so I'll repeat it: actually, by a correct reading of the FHS, /opt
is almost built for non-free. There ARE many reasons for Main to leave
/opt alone, however, non-free software is supposed to be "third party" by
its very nature, and Debian is really not supposed to put non-free
software on any system without the explicit permission of the sysadmin.
KDE however is not in this category, so can be left well enough alone.
However, /opt/lib/netscape is not exactly a bad thing: and it very well
may satisfy DJB's quirky [non-free] license to put all of his stuff in
$INSTALLROOT=/opt. Perhaps instead of going with "hands off /opt", Debian
really ought to set a policy of "non-free only in /opt where practicable,
and only non-free in /opt under all circumstances".
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!