Re: [Lsb-CommonPackaging] URGENT Proposal: Package naming schemes
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Albert den Haan wrote:
> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:16:14 -0400
> From: Albert den Haan <albertd@corel.com>
> To: schilling@fokus.gmd.de
> Cc: tytso@mit.edu, lsb-spec@lists.linuxbase.org,
> lsb-taskforce1@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Lsb-CommonPackaging] URGENT Proposal: Package naming schemes
> Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:15:42 +0200
> Resent-From: lsb-spec@lists.linuxbase.org
>
> schilling@fokus.gmd.de wrote:
> >
> > >From: Albert den Haan <albertd@corel.com>
> >
> > >I proposed at one time that the LANANA (make sure that term ends up in
> > >the glossary!) assigned name also be the packages installation directory
> > >under /opt/<pkgname> with its sub directories under packager control. I
> > >don't remember hearing of any problems, so we should go with that too.
> >
> > >What was the word on where configuration files of such package should
> > >go? /opt/<pkg>/etc?
> >
> > The global config goes to /opt/<pkg>/etc (note that /opt may be exported via NFS)
> > a local config goes to /etc/opt/<pkg>/
>
> *That* I can live with!
>
> Has any default vs. overriding file instance discussion happened yet?
> For example: "If possible, the settings in /opt/<pkg>/etc will be
> defaults while any settings in the corresponding files in
> /etc/opt/<pkg>/ will take precedence and override the defaults." I
> know this is a pain to code the first time, but administrators of sites
> who do export/import /opt will thank us for the effort.
>
Indeed you I would thank, and I also know of systems where
/opt is mounted with amd because of an eavy congested network.
Luigi Genoni
Reply to: