Re: Interpreting FHS
> > Just as a side note (NOT as a proposition by any means!):
> > what's really so wrong in C:\program files style? Of course, on
> > open systems, instead of vendor specific directories, there should be some
> > other subdirectory policy (lsm for example?).
>
> The problem: where to install libs that come with the package and other might
> refer to? How to search for installed programs by looking at one direcory
> (without masses of symlinks)? How to have one nice dir for configuration
> files instead of searching, where there might be any?
For libraries: my proposition was exactly "masses of
(dependent) symlinks".
For other files: if you know the name of the package you want to configure
(which usually is the case), you would look in /usr/<packname>/etc.
> But dependent links would really be nice (ones that even follow when the file
> is copied) although practically hardly possible.
I think they could be pretty effectively implemented if filesystem
development goes into direction that ReiserFS advocates are planning. You
would simply have a flag in an inode, telling that others rely on it, and
once it is deleted (or moved), a "symlink fat query" would be performed.
But well, once again, this is probably going to far out of the topic (KDE
on Debian)...
- Jarno
Reply to: