Re: FHS section 3.8: /opt/<package>/
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
> > Not use /opt ? Isn't that what the LSB spec and FHS V2.0 is specifying?
>
> The FHS and LSB don't specify you have to use /opt. They allow /opt to exist
> but there are good techmnical reasons for not doing so - think about NFS
> sharing of /usr but not /var and the fact thin client is important
>
> (The FHS is probably the right place for that discussion)
>
> The naming issue applies regardless
Usually apps that would be installed in /opt shouldn't be networked
anyway - most /opt programs are binary-only restrictively licensed
programs that would make this difficult to do legally.
Regardless of that, I think the safest thing is to just use
/opt/<packagename>. Given the type of software that typically lurks
here, there's a good chance of having a trademarked name to use for
<packagename>, and there shouldn't be a conflict. For instance, in the
Java example you (George) suggest, only Sun has a real claim to using
/opt/java, since they own the Java trademark. However, I would
recommend that it be /opt/jdk, since it is the JDK. Other Java vendors
would need to use their own package names (e.g. /opt/jikes).
--
Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo - jkaivo@ndn.net - http://jakob.kaivo.net/
Reply to: