Re: File Systems.
Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> * "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
I would agree with that assessment. (Sort of doubtful anyone is
listening to me anyway now, but I do agree with Jochem on this)
Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> > 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
> > elsewhere.
> Yes, no package-managed software should go to /usr/local. It should go
> to /opt ;-)
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > Again, we've had this discussion on the fhs-discuss list. There is a
> > place for that in FHS 2.0; it's called /opt. However, we currently
> > don't presume to dictate to 3rd party application providers whether they
> > have to use /opt or not.
> Fair enough. My point is, though, that it is still vital for the LSB, in
> instances such as this, to suggest rather than dictate.
I also thought that this was done long ago, but there is a potential
problem in using /opt that could be addressed by applying the structure
of /usr to /opt.
FHS doesn't seem to specify a suggested structure in /opt, and for the
sake of editing a users paths for applications in /opt, it would nice to
suggest they use a /opt/bin, /opt/var, etc.. type structure. Common use
of /opt has been to put application names in the path (/opt/kde/bin,
/opt/staroffice/bin, /opt/wp/bin), which can get messy. Moving to /opt
without a structure for /opt would cause more confusion than benefit.
That's just a suggestion, IMO it might help, but it's a matter for FHS
to discuss first, then the LSB choose to accept or ignore. (But, the
FHS site doesn't have a link to the FHS discussion forum, anyone know
+---- CurrenTEK --- http://www.currentek.com ----+
| "Robert W Current" <email@example.com> |
| Founder, President of Research and Development |