Re: Interpreting FHS and KDE filesystem structure
On Wednesday 16 January 2002 12:09 pm, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 January 2002 12:27, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 08:55:16PM +0000, James Thorniley wrote:
> > > I'm supported also by Mosfet, see www.mosfet.org/fss.html for an actual
> > > argument for why directory layout should be more logical.
> > You say that like it's a good thing. Mosfet's on drugs.
Whether he's in this discussion or not, a personal attack is a flame, so not
> It just happens that piece by Mosfet is well written.
> Although I cant see how putting kde in /opt/kde would be more logical.. If
> anywhere, I would put it in /usr/kde. Like X it is a system on its own, "A
> system within the system".
The reason I haven't been suggesting /usr/kde3 is it definitely would be
against FHS. However I agree it would be better than /opt/kde3, especially if
we take note of Mark Brown's argument (from Re: Interpreting FHS):
> Deciding to use it [/opt] for KDE would, however, result in large numbers of
> admins becoming more than a little grumpy with you as they notice that
> you have decided to dump all of KDE onto their root filesystem.
I assume by this we mean people who have /usr on a seperate partition, which
is an argument for using /usr/kde3, but that means getting FHS changed.. hmm,
possible but difficult ;)