also sprach Brian W. Carver <brianwcarver@yahoo.com> [2002.04.13.2048 +0200]:
> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-3.12.html
thanks, i am actually part of the team i guess...
> You seem extremely committed on the one hand to following FHS to the letter,
> even going so far as to get mad at those who offer opinions rather than
> delivering pure unadulterated FHS rationale in their answers
simply because debian-* mailing lists tend to get voluminous on such
threads, at the same time losing focus and causing ridiculous
arguments. i am just tired of it, it wastes everyone's time!
> "there's something deep inside me speaking against /opt at the top
> of the filesystem hierarchy. i know it's a standard but i don't like
> it as i believe that these packages *should* really sit under
> /usr/local."
>
> Well, then THIS is what has caused your dilemma. You either decide
> you like FHS so much that you'll do exactly what it says in this
> case (see above), or you decide that, as you say, "I don't like it"
> and you do what you prefer. You don't actually have an answerable
> question here, but rather a decision you have to make.
it's something that i am pushing for inclusion with the FHS. there
ought to be /usr/local/opt just for that. i don't (yet) have a /opt
partition, and when i reinstall debian (on a freshly-made filesystem),
/opt is gone. but i don't feel like reinstalling openoffice or vmware
or whatever. that's what /usr/local is for, period.
i am not saying that the FHS is perfect, it's *under constant
development*. i am saying that i don't see enough of a difference
between /opt and something in /usr/local to convince me to maintain
both.
> If your dislike for this has some rationale that you'd like to
> persuade the FHS folks of, then you should go to the mailing list
> for FHS at
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freestandards-fhs-discuss
> and persuade them to address your concerns in an upcoming version of
> FHS.
i have been on this mailing list for a while, and i have raised this
issue before.
> Sorry if this sounds pissy, but I feel you didn't ask an answerable
> question and then got mad at list members who were unable to do the
> impossible. Let's all try to lighten up and realize we're talking
> about filesystem conventions here...
you have a point. i didn't really get mad. i has stated up front that
i wanted educated information, not "i think" or "imho" or "i guess" or
opinions. that's what the FHS mailinglist is for. i wanted to employ
debian-user as a resource of facts because i couldn't find the info
elsewhere. yet, i still got the "i think" reply. sorry, i didn't mean
to get snappy, but i do try to advocate: read the listmail, think,
think again, and think again before you post. too many folks just post
without even thinking and often the response doesn't even address the
question.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; net@madduck
time wounds all heels.
-- groucho marx
Attachment:
pgpD6MmuGSJts.pgp
Description: PGP signature