Re: [forward] FHS pre-2.1 draft #3 on web site
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 04:18:07PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Oh c'mon. You're talking about people who are smart enough to create
> symlinks in /opt/bin, but aren't smart enough to create the dir in the
> first place? I don't buy it. :-)
The issue isn't that they don't know how to create directories -- the
issue is that without the directories there as a hint, there's a
decent chance that it's not going to even occur to them to do. For
example, there are some debian developers who have paths longer than
1k on non-debian systems, yet there was nothing stopping them from
creating an /opt/bin on those non-debian systems.
If the directories exist *and* are ready to use, that final step --
creating symlinks -- can be documented in a sentence or so. [And maybe
someone would write up a page or so of examples for true novices.]
If we don't support this, if we expect users to just know that they can
create directories, and just know what config files to edit and how to
edit them, then it's going to take a lot more than a single sentence to
get them going.
> I hestitate to even recommend creating symlinks because I've seen
> programs that will break if not found through /opt/package/bin.
> Ugly, maldesigned packages, true, but that's the whole thing about
> proprietary software -- you don't get any choice in the matter.
That does make the requisite documentation a bit more complex (you have
to recommend a shell script wrapper).
However, just because this is a bit complex doesn't mean that the rest
should be.
> > And, I don't see that the existence of these directories would
> > create any problems for our users or our developers.
>
> I don't see it offering any measureable benefit either, and we have
> much more important things to worry about.
I see a measurable benefit: it makes the whole situation easier to talk
about. Both in terms of documentation for admins (just create a symlink,
with a foot note about shell script covers for broken programs), and for
corporations who might be generating packages (want to try explaining
why a package is broken if it doesn't work from a symlink in /opt/bin/
when we don't even *provide* an /opt/bin/? Do you expect a corporate
developer to "just know" about this?)
> > We already have /opt/man/ in /etc/manpath.config. If we also have
> > /opt/bin in our default path, and /opt/include preconfigured as system
> > include files, etc. then we make it a lot easier for a novice sysadmin
> > to integrate an /opt package with the rest of our system. There would
> > be no need to go and change a bunch of configuration files -- all the
> > sysadmin has to do is install some softlinks.
>
> Now this part of the plan I strongly approve of. Let's do this first,
> this part is important, then we'll worry about silly hacks that the
> people who need won't need. :-)
I've already filed a wishlist bug report against bash about $PATH.
I've not taken the time yet to figure out if info or gcc need to
do anything.
Once again: I see a need for these directories as a simple form of
documentation.
--
Raul
Reply to: