>> The /usr/local/ issue is defined by FHS. If you don't like it because
>> you feel it's too BSD, then work on changing FHS. AFAIK, LSB is to
>> comply with FHS, not vice versa (For good reason).
>FHS does not specify that distributions cannot put their own software
>anywhere but /usr/local. You seem to be suggesting making the standard
>far more restrictive than any I've seen--that's what I object to. I
>think you'll find that many people are quite happy with distributions
>putting their software into /usr/bin and leaving /usr/local for local
>use. Why should they change?
because it's being done doesn't make it "right"
It's wrong, and causeing problems. As time and software progress, it will
And, not everyone is quite happy with it... It's just done through
packaging where they don't really care what happens.
> There is not technical issue at stake, only
> personal preference. When I mentioned BSD, it was to indicate that if
> you prefer a different model, you can use it. Alternatively, you could
> create a linux distribution with the BSD model. For that matter, you can
> go with hurd and blur the entire distinction between / and /usr. I see
> no benefit to insisting that everyone follow a single model, as long as
> there is an agreed-upon set of standard tools.
The operative word here is "standard"
Will the standard be a list of required tools?
Or will it be a definition of what the "base" of linux is?
If it's just required tools, that will be very limited in the problems
(ISV issues, compatability issues) it addresses.
Somewhere along the line, the LSB has to do something "difficult" for
people, it's unavoidable. This is not for the sake of being difficult,
it's for the sake of making the OS more uniform and usable. Granted it's
not trivial, but, it's logical and consistant, and a good idea. Better to
do this now than when it grows to 10G of "standard software."
Linux was once fairly complete at 10M, now it's easily 500M in /usr, and
nothing in /usr/local or /opt. That's starting to get rediculus. The OS
is not 500M... That's the issue. So, why is there 500+M of crap in
- RE: RFC
- From: Jeffrey Watts <email@example.com>
- Re: RFC
- From: Michael Stone <firstname.lastname@example.org>