On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 06:54:07AM -0800, Robert W. Current wrote:
>> 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 /usr/bin?
>Why would it be better to have 500M in /opt? That's the sticking point.
>You're saying that you don't want a standard that allows distributions
>to put things in /usr, and I'm saying that there are distributions that
>want to do things that way. Can you offer a reasoned argument to support
>why your way is right and the other way is wrong?
Sure, /opt is fine for 500M, so is /usr/local
if /opt and /usr/local are unmounted, distroyed, or corrupt, one should
expect the OS itself to remain intact. The OS itself should be isolated
from what non-essential software does during it's install, removal, and
Logic seems clear (to me) that keeping essentials in /usr/bin and
non-essentials in /usr/local/bin or /opt keeps things cleaner, more
logical, and more functional.
FHS states that "added software" should not go in "/usr/bin"
The issue boils down to this debate to me:
If Red Hat Packages it, does that mean it's "part of the base" or is it
just "added software" done by a distributer rather than the user. What
happens when a user adds more .rpms?
This is why I think it should be in /usr/local or /opt, not
/usr/bin... Just because it's "a distribution" doesn't mean it's not
"additional software beyond the base"
- Re: RFC
- From: Aaron Gaudio <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- RE: RFC
- From: "Robert W. Current" <email@example.com>