Re: High powered Debian advocacy?
* Noah Sombrero (email@example.com) spake thusly:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:29:59 -0600, you wrote:
> >Apt installs there because that's where the FHS
> >(http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) says things should go.
> Was not disputing that there might be authority behind how
> it is done.
> >Rather than making it difficult to use extra hard drives, this easily
> >allows you to dedicate a partition to /usr, possibly one to /usr/local
> >(if you install a lot of stuff that's not under apt's control).
> Again, there is only one /usr. If that one is full, and I install a new
> hd... /usr/local is used some by other installation methods. I see
> that Sylpheed and Forte (java ide) put themselves there. I did not
> say it was impossible to use the extra space, just not easy.
Yes, you could install everything under e.g. /opt (/opt/package1,
/opt/package2, etc.) Then you could mount /opt/packageN as separate
filesystems. Of course you'll run out of environment space (for PATH
et al.) very fast with that setup, so you make symlinks to
I hear it's been tried. I also hear that it was *much* worse than
installing stuff directly in /usr.
>From personal experience, installing things in /opt/foo and using
stow to link them to /usr/local sucks in many interesting ways (at
least on Solaris).
So don't think FHS mandates that because FHS is stupid.
Surely there is a polite way to say FOAD. -- Shmuel Metz
"Go forth and multiply". -- Paul Martin