Re: Should non-free and contrib packages install to /opt?
Buddha Buck wrote:
>
> Is there any particular reason (besides history and inertia) that
> non-free and contrip packages aren't installed into /opt?
No, these two are quite strong enough :-)
Jokes apart, I have already proposed this (for non-free only), but I was
hit by the prevention that people has against /opt, because of the very
bad use of it done by several vendors. The use of /opt proposed in FHS
is quite good, and permit that division in three (vendor, sysadm and
third parties) which is quite desiderable.
>
> On the one hand, we keep saying that "Debian" is main, and that contrib
> and non-free aren't part of Debian. That would point to labelling
> contrib and non-free as "add-on packages", which according to the FHS,
> supposedly belong in /opt.
I'm not so sure we were saying that 'contrib' is not part of debian.
There were real and effective problems putting it on a CD because of the
dependencies.
But I agree that non-free belongs to /opt . dpkg would be very good in
solving the feared environment pollution (by puting symlinks and/or
wrappers in /opt/bin /opt/lib /opt/man etc.)
> dwarf@polaris.net said:
> > Debian as not yet chosen to addopt FHS, and most of the discussions on
> > FHS have made it clear that many developers don't want to adopt /opt
> > for anything delivered by Debian.
>
> (This was as part of the discussion of where to place TETware, which
> would like some separation from the rest of the installed filespace for
> its own technical reasons).
This discussion came out also when Andreas started packaging KDE, long
time ago, and turned out in the usual flame, doubled by license problems
:-)
>
> If we view non-free/contrib as being "delivered by Debian", then this
> argument would go against putting non-free/contrib in /opt.
We should stop considering that things packaged in .deb are "delivered
by Debian". Also other people can (should) start packaging their own
stuff in .deb , and providing a clear policy on how to do (installing
under /opt) would be a service for the community.
We should start packaging non-free stuff as an example. The ideal would
be that people creating non-free programs will package them into /opt by
themselves. But I don't hold my breath. I think in some case we have to
drop the "official" DD hat and wear the hat of the "third party".
>
> I've gotten the impression that we want third-party add-on .deb
> packages to use /opt. I think that by having non-free and contrib in
> /opt, we would a) distinguish between what is "debian" and what isn't
> "debian" more cleanly, and b) provide an example to other third-party
> vendors as to how /opt should be handled on a Debian system.
There was even a request from a commercial company to carry non-free in
their ftp site, just to separate it from debian.
I don't think it is good that "one" company hold it, but maybe the idea
to separate debian mirrors and non-free mirrors is not so bad. apt
permits this, so we can reconsider it.
>
> On a personal level, while I think that putting non-free/contrib into
> /opt is the right solution, it would be a hardship for me as a user,
> since I don't really have the space necessary to repartition my system
> to include an /opt.
>
It doesn't have to be on a separate partition. If you have a single big
root partition that would be fine as well. But if you have only a small
root partition and no more free space in your disk (to create a new
partition) a symlink to a place where you have room is just the same.
cheers,
fab
Reply to: