Re: Theoretical APT question
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 02:49:22AM -0800, Wm.G.McGrath wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:58:47 -0700
> Paul E Condon <pecondon@peakpeak.com> wrote:
> :
> : I don't know the answer to your question, but:
> :
> : The thing that really sold me on switching from RH to Debian was a
> : document called File Heirarchy Standard. FHS sets out in great
> : detail exactly where every type of file should be placed on a
> : Debian machine, and why. You should really read and understand
> : that document before you start re-inventing the wheel. A lot of
> : thinking, discussion, and argument went into producing FHS. I
> : suppose that it could be improved upon, but you really need to be
> : intimately familiar with it, if you are going to have a chance of
> : success. There are all sorts of considerations that get ignored in
> : a first pass design. Educate yourself before you launch into
> : shuffling things around.
>
> Yeah, I read it many years ago - before there were package managers
> I think. It's gone basically nowhere because IMHO it tries to
I don't think "gone ... nowhere" is at all accurate. In Debian, a
package that does not comply with Debian Policy does not get into
the distribution. If, by accident, it does get in, its lack of
compliance is a legitimate reason for a bug report. That the rest of
the world does not seem to pay much attention to issues of policy is
a problem with the rest of the world, not with Debian.
But there is always a possibility that policy might be improved, so if
you have an idea as to how FHS might be improved, by all means pursue
it.
> shoehorn everyone into the same standard. Desktops, servers,
Of course, 'everyone' does not run Debian, but those that do often
find the freedom from worry about old, stupid problems to be a good
thing.
> single-disk systems, multi-disk systems, disk-array systems, NFS
> systems and so on. There's no way one standard can serve everyone's
> best interest. AFAIK distros don't even make use of FHS dirs
> like/usr/local and /opt on installation. So why should I adhere to
> it? Originally, /usr served the same purpose as /home does today,
> but now you've got tons of software installed there too. Messy.
>
> I don't want to re-invent the wheel, but I would like to have
> options. Most of the structure is the way it is for good historical
> reasons and I accept that. Some people are going to need to keep
> things exactly the way they are. If someone needs to use /usr/local
> under NFS be my guest. But if I'm not running NFS......well choice
> is what linux is about - at least limited choice. All I'm looking
> for is a better way to use apt and install software - something more
> in tune with my needs.
>
> And yes educating myself it what I'm doing by asking questions.
>
> Thanks for the advice,
>
> bill
Lots of Leonardo deVinci's notes are in cursive script, written
right-to-left, rather than left-to-right. Doing things a different
way is certainly *not* a sign of lack of intelligence. Go for it!
now that you've been warned.
--
Paul E Condon
pecondon@peakpeak.com
Reply to: