On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 05:09:54PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > On Thursday 17 January 2002 16:21, Daniel Stone wrote: > > You might note the discussion on debian-kde of late, where Eray is > > attempting to set a precedent by installing KDE3 into /opt/kde3. Let me > > first disclose my viewpoint: I think this idea sucks, as you can clearly > > see from my postings. > > > > The answer I got when I asked "Why isn't /opt used in Debian ?" has always > been "/opt violates Debian Policy". I've explicitly stated my other reservations about /opt several times when you say this, but you just don't get the point. /opt sucks. /opt has not been used by any other Debian package to date afaik. /opt does not exist in a default debian installation, afaik. /opt is for "add-on" software. kde is not an "add-on". we package it as part of the distribution, it's not added on. > However on James's message, I read the section and saw that there is no such > thing in neither the policy nor FHS. I'm only saying that installing packages > in /opt doesn't seem to violate the FHS in any way. As I explained in my > messages, "/opt violates Debian Policy" seems to depend on a certain > assumption that "add-on" means "non-free software supplied by third party > commercial vendors" whereas in the text of the FHS there is no such > implication. On the contrary it says distributions can install software in > /opt, just not touch a few reserved subdirs of /opt. Yes, you too can clutter /opt with one subdir per package! WHOO! > However, using /opt may not be a good path to follow for most free software. > I understand that as well as you do, especially for software following GNU > Coding Standards it is absolutely unnecessary. Yes. Absolutely. > > My main concern is that we'll set a precedent here in Debian for this > > sort of behaviour. AFAIK no Debian package has ever touched /opt; in > > fact I'm pretty sure it doesn't even exist on a default install. > > > > So, please read the thread and state your opinions. I know it's a KDE > > issue, but I feel it affects Debian as a whole, since putting something > > in /opt ("SuSE and RedHat do it, so it *must* be good!"), would set a > > major precedent for Debian. > > Actually Red Hat doesn't do it that way. Red Hat for instance uses > --prefix=/usr for their KDE packages in 7.2. > > SuSE uses /opt, and they claim to be FHS compliant of course. I haven't had > the opportunity to examine either of the systems (I've never used a Red Hat > or SuSE system), however that was what other KDE coders told me. > > One thing to discuss here would be whether FHS is right about that issue or > not. So feel free to send patches to FHS :) > > Except that, it seems to be in "violation of FHS" to not support reserved > subdirs of /opt intended for local administrator's use, such as /opt/bin and > /opt/lib. They should exist on a default install, and binaries in /opt/bin > should be in $PATH, etc. And binaries in /opt/kde3/bin? And /opt/apache/bin? And ... you get the point. How large do you want $PATH to be? And before you can say "symlink", we can't screw around with /opt/bin, either. And providing one wrapper script for every binary is MESSY, and SUCKS imho. How many KDE binaries are there? The answer is: $toomany. > Please send replies to debian-kde too, or Cc: me. Please don't Cc: me on any Debian posts any more as I'm honestly not interested. -- Daniel Stone <daniel@sfarc.net> <CheezH> Subject: ssh: shit is fucked
Attachment:
pgpjYT_smQifM.pgp
Description: PGP signature