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

Re: [kde] setting an /opt precedent

On 18 Jan 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

>Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> writes:
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 10:22:43AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> > Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.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.  
(ir-reve-rent-lations 13:17-19)
Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!

Reply to: