Re: File Systems.
* "H. Peter Anvin" <email@example.com> wrote:
> > The question is: Are distributors delivering "Linux" or are they 3rd
> > party application providers?
> DEFINITELY the former.
Really? So sendmail, apache, inn, Emacs, Netscape, LaTeX and so on are
part of the "OS Linux"? IMHO there is a Kernel and a buzzword "Linux",
but not an "OS Linux" yet. Distributors are selling systems based on the
Linux-kernel, packaged with lots of 3rd party software. There is *no*
way to tell if a particular part of the product belongs to the operating
system or is a third party application yet, because there is no OS
LSB should try to define such a base of a Linux OS and if it fails to do
so and just says "Linux is whatever some distributor delivers on it's
CDs, as long as the name of the product includes the string 'Linux'", it
will fail at all. (That's just my opinion, so please don't flame me on
that. I have reasons for that, though.)
> In fact, I would be majorly vexed if any kind of package-managed
> software ended up in /usr/local. It is there is no small part to deal
> with just software that cannot be efficiently package-managed
Yes, no package-managed software should go to /usr/local. It should go
to /opt ;-)
> Of course, the best is to deliver relocatable packages.
For binary packages this often is mostly impossible without major
rewritings of the contained software. It also makes packaging
significantly harder, since you can't rely on paths then (you can use
dependencies to see if a software is there, but you have to dig after
it's directories and libraries then. Try to do a relocatable package for
Netscape and then a package of plugins for Netscape. You can't anymore
rely on dependencies, you have to actually look for the
plugin-directories). IMHO the best is to clearly state "nothing but
LSB-compliant stuff should go to /bin and /usr/bin, package-managed
software has to go to /opt, other locally installed software to
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!