Re: File Systems.

[Jochem Huhmann <joh@gmx.net>]

* tytso@mit.edu 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.  
> 
> I claim this is the correct choice, and that to dictate that 3rd party
> applications *aren't* allowed to use /usr/bin is an imposition far worse
> than you've accused the LSB of committing.

Having /usr/bin limited to a specified base OS as well as having
distributions not to install anything in /usr/local would be more
clear. This also could avoid some packaging trouble, since the specified
base system then could be handled separately and one could sandbox the
distributors to /opt as the local admin to /usr/local. Looks much
clearer to me.

The question is: Are distributors delivering "Linux" or are they 3rd
party application providers? 


        Jochem

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!