Re: X and LSB
* tytso@mit.edu wrote:
> For example, if you want to argue over the placement of files, the FHS
> discussion list is more appropriate (although many subjects have already
> been hashed over, and there won't be much enthuasism for revisiting
> already-decided issues).
I don't want to argue over the placement of files. I've said more than
once that /usr vs. /opt is not the problem in itself, it just points at
a problem. But I'm wondering why most admins consider mixing all
distribution packages in /usr as very bad idea (hey, a nice idea for a
slashdot poll ;-) while distributors seem to like that so much. I would
like to discuss if the LSB-effort is about satisfying the needs of
distributors and ISVs only.
The mission statement says "The goal of the Linux Standard Base (LSB) is
to develop and promote a set of standards that will increase
compatibility among Linux distributions and enable software applications
to run on any compliant Linux system." This is not as straight as it
looks first.
IMHO that does not necessarily mean that LSB just has to serve the needs
of distributors and ISVs. One has to live with these systems and
software packages after they've been sold and installed and one has to
care for them then. Distributors just have to care for one distribution
and ISVs have to care just for getting their apps installed and
running. Locking users in a chosen distribution (just as an example) may
be nice for distributors but not for the users and admins of these
systems. In an ideal world I should be able to unmount /opt and mount
another partition on /opt to switch from one distributed set of software
("distribution") to another without reinstalling the whole system.
I'm getting the impression that LSB does not mean "Linux Standard Base"
but "Standard Base to ease the selling of CD sets and commercial
applications". If LSB is just a thing between distributors and ISVs, it
will be a standard for distributors and ISVs but not for Linux.
BTW, the problem behind /opt and /usr is *not* for FHS, since the FHS
already says everything about that issue what it can say without knowing
what the "base system" is and what "additional software" is. The LSB has
to say something about this and if it doesn't do that, pointing at the
FHS-discussions is meaningless. Example: KDE is a large package but if a
distributor decides KDE to be "part of the system" and install it in
/usr instead of /opt the FHS doesn't help at all since it isn't
additional software then. The FHS can say where the system and where
additional software should go to, but the LSB has to say where the
system ends and additional software begins. That's the point I'm trying
to make.
I'm probably wasting my time and yours too, sorry for that. I don't mean
to rant, really.
Jochem
--
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
Reply to: