Re: Interpreting FHS
Call me crazy, but I've always thought that soft symlinks could be great here:
- Put each package in it's own subdir under, say, /pkg.
- Next, put symlinks into /usr/bin, /usr/lib, /etc, ad nauseum, in order to follow the Debian Policy.
This way, you could have /pkg/qt2, /pkg/qt3, /pkg/kde2, etc... Maybe it's the DOS mentality of 1 subdir per program, but I think this makes things very organized.
What's this about only 8500 sub-dirs in /usr?
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:22:09 -0600 Chris Cheney <ccheney@cheney.cx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 02:48:06AM +0200, Jarno Elonen wrote:
> -snip-
> > If there were a way to remove symlinks when the original file is removed,
> > I think the following structure would be the easiest to understand and
> > administrate:
> >
> > + usr
> > + bin
> > + qtcups -> ../qtcups/bin/qtcups
> > + nano -> ../nano/bin/nano
> > + sbin
> > + traceroute -> ../traceroute/bin/traceroute
> > + qtcups
> > + etc (conf)
> > + share (data)
> > + bin (binaries)
> > + doc (man, info)
> > + nano
> > + etc
> > + bin
> > + doc
> > + traceroute
> > + etc
> > + bin
> > + doc
>
> If it was structured like this then besides the other issues mentioned
> wrt libs, you could have up to ~ 8500 subdirs in /usr, not particularly
> good. 8)
>
> Chris Cheney
--
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron.l.johnson@cox.net |
| Jefferson, LA USA http://ronandheather.dhs.org |
| |
! "Millions of Chinese speak Chinese, and it's not |
! hereditary..." |
! Dr. Dean Edell !
+------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: