Re: [forward] FHS pre-2.1 draft #3 on web site
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 10:29:36PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Yes, I've read chapter 2, and I just reread it. What about it? I see
> nothing there that contradicts what I said above. Both /usr (including
> /usr/local) and /opt are static and sharable, so what's the problem?
Oops, I misremembered. Sorry about that.
> > > I think we should *support* the /opt nonsense, since it's
> > > effectively a requirement, but I think we should stop short of
> > > encouraging or promoting its use.
>
> > This implies that creating directories is not support.
>
> No, it implies that creating these unnecessary, redundant, and
> arguably just-plain-*wrong* directories is *more* support than the
> whole /opt tree needs or deserves. :-p ;-)
Uh uh.
You don't get to call the FHS wrong without providing a rationale -- one
that superceeds the rationale provided by the FHS.
> > Personally, I think that the existence of the directories will
> > simplify the documentation [...]
>
> Yeah, that could be. Is it worth it? I don't know -- my gut feeling
> is that it's not, but then I (obviously) dislike the whole /opt
> heirarchy.
Sure, well, if you can come up with something more convincing than the
FHS I'm willing to listen.
--
Raul
Reply to: