[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [kde] setting an /opt precedent

On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:26:08PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> On Thursday 17 January 2002 23:11, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Somehow, I doubt that was the intended meaning of the FHS.
> I see. However, it is not very clear whether that phrase has any meaning. If 
> it's going to be practically impossible for distributions to install files in 
> /opt, why is it allowed in the first place? If it's going to be possible for 
> a local system administrator to form his own packages under various 
> /opt/<package> then why isn't a location in /usr/local adapted for this 
> purpose? Who is going to maintain the packages under an /opt/<package>? 
> System software or the local administrator? That paragraph doesn't seem to be 
> consistent at all, and it isn't a good division of responsibility.

We can't touch what an admin puts there without violating the FHS. I
don't think that typing "apt-get install kde" is explicit assent,
because we haven't asked the user a question like: "Hi, just calling to
say that we're going to stomp all over your installation in /opt! Cool?

It's even less cool because we do what no other Debian package has ever
done - install to /opt. Remember that principle of least surprise I told
you about a while ago?

Don't mess with it.

Daniel Stone						    <daniel@sfarc.net>
<Alias> Wait, I have something for you all
<Alias> Romeo and Juliet in 1337!

Attachment: pgpJVedp6qfMW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: