Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, James Thorniley wrote:
> The fact of the matter is that SuSE and Redhat produce distributions where
> their installation of KDE is compatible with an installation from source of
> KDE from ftp.kde.org.
A default installation of Apache from source installs into /usr/local/etc.
Should Debian try and be compatible with that? The whole reason you are
using a distro and not, say, Linux From Scratch, is to get an integrated
system that works consistently.
> In debian, for some reason, all the docs have been
> moved from [kde-prefix]/share/doc/HTML/<language>/<packagename> to
> [kde-prefix]/share/doc/kde/HTML/<language>/<packagename>. This makes it
> virtually impossible to produce a source distribution of a KDE app which is
> compatible with all GNU/Linux distributions (unless you're in the mood for
> messing about with the hell-on-earth that is automake macros, not to mention
> I don't see why I should have to deviate from the standard automake macros
> provided by KDE, since they work for every other distribution).
apt-get install autobook. It should teach you everything you need to know
about how automake etc. work. In particular the "impossible" feat you
mentioned is very easy to resolve; Do:
before running configure. In fact that's precisely the kind of things the
Debian packages do. You could argue that is kind of thing isn't very well
documented and you would have a point but a point in a different debate
than this one. :-)
> > Oh and btw, /usr/X11R6 and /usr/games were both UNIX traditions from
> > before Linux and were grandfathered in to the FHS. They really shouldn't
> > exist.
> Interesting you note this, since this kind of logical directory layout is of
> course the traditional UNIX way.
Yes and this is why my Solaris box has binaries under /usr/apache,
/usr/ccs /usr/dt, /usr/dict, /usr/java1.1, /usr/java1.2 /usr/openwin,
/usr/perl5, /usr/xpg4, and /usr/ucb and my $PATH is half a mile long. I
don't see how an ever-growing list of directories makes things any
easier for the user or the admin in the long run. We have modern
packaging systems like rpm or deb. We don't need to rely on the admins
overtaxed brain to keep track of things.
> The FHS rather goes against traditional UNIX
> thinking that most old sysadmins are happy with (see the Mosfet artical
> again. www.mosfet.org/fss.html). I also happen to think that the consensus
> from all other GNU/Linux distributions does add some weight - whether it's
> truly standards compliant, they've all thought about it as a team of
> developers and have come up with the same answer, and they're not stupid.
Actually all the major distros have agreed at least in prncipal to the FHS
(as part of the Linux Standard Base or from before.) So it is just a
matter of when they start complying not if. I know Red Hat 7.2 for
example doesn't install anything into /opt.
Jaldhar H. Vyas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/