Re: File Systems.
Jochem Huhmann wrote:
>
> * 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?
>
DEFINITELY the former. 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.
Of course, the best is to deliver relocatable packages.
-hpa
Reply to: