Re: [gentoo-dev] Programs that depend on X libraries

[Aron Griffis]

Hi Mikael,

Mikael Hallendal wrote:	[Wed Aug 29 2001, 08:27:00PM EDT]
> First of all, I want to enlighten people not used to BSD that there is
> another way. BSDs (at least NetBSD, think the others does this too)
> installes everything not in the base-system in it's own directory
> (/usr/pkg/ on NetBSD). This is a nice solution IMHO since it keeps
> /usr "clean". This is a feature many people bring up as one of the
> better things in the Linux vs. *BSD. Might be worth a thought.

This is interesting, but I don't think it applies to Gentoo.  The NetBSD
packages collection is a set of software utilities and libraries which
have been ported to NetBSD.  As such, they're sort of a layered product
that need to be separated from the base system in order to prevent
potential conflicts.  (If I'm misunderstanding this, please tell me.)

That's not what we're dealing with in Gentoo.  There is no separation of
the "base system" from the "other packages", because the ebuilds
comprise a single collection of packages that make up the "base system".
As such, I don't think the /usr/pkg hierarchy makes sense for Gentoo.

To digress a bit, I think that /usr/pkg would make sense for a set of
packages that are maintained via a method separate from the base
distribution.  For example, if Ximian were to offer a set of rpms to
install on Gentoo, they might install into /usr/pkg so as to prevent
conflicts with the Portage-controlled directories.  I only bring this up
as a speculative situation in which /usr/pkg would make sense on Gentoo,
not because I want to open a discussion about rpms or Ximian!  :-)

> > (1) The FHS says: "This hierarchy is reserved for the X Window System,
> >     version 11 release 6, and related files."  IMHO that doesn't include
> >     programs that are linked against the X libraries, just programs that
> >     are delivered with the X distribution.
>
> This is a good reason for not installing in /usr/X11R6.

Yes, and I think it's the reason most of our developers agree with.

> > (2) Consistency with other major distributions.  Both Red Hat and Debian
> >     install programs (even those linked against X libraries) in /usr.
> >     (For the most part... Deviations seem to be primarily historical.)
>
> I don't think this weights in so much. We are pretty different from the
> other distributions and tries to do the stuff the way we think is best.
> This argument should (IMHO) only be used where it really doesn't matter
> to us.

Consistency with other major distributions carries more weight in my
mind, primarily because I think it would be a shame if we fail to learn
from their experience.

However I have a strong appreciation for the Gentoo developers' desire
to innovate, and to break nonsensical practices held to by other
distributions.  I think that's a strength of Gentoo that can carry us
a long way.  For that reason we have discussions like this one...

> > (3) Simplicity in the ebuilds.  Consider the following scenarios:
> >
> >     * ebuild with multiple binaries, some of which link against X,
> >       others that don't.  Does the ebuild author split up the binaries?
> >       If so, this becomes confusing to both the ebuild author (who has
> >       to go through and distinguish one from the other) and to the
> >       end-user (who might expect both prog and xprog to live in the same
> >       location).
> >
> >     * ebuild with binary that optionally links to X.  Does the ebuild
> >       author put conditionals in the ebuild to install in either
> >       /usr/X11R6 or /usr?  If so, this again creates a confusing
> >       situation for the end-user.
> >
> >     In both of these cases, it's easier to install to /usr and not worry
> >     about either of the above.
>
> Yes, this is the reason I think is worse the most. I really don't like
> the install-in-different-paths-depending-on-whats-it-linked-against.
>
> This is the same with GNOME. Like XChat, if it's compiled with
> GNOME-support it's installed in /opt/gnome and if it's not it's
> installed in /usr/X11R6 (and with current setup, it should be added a
> text-only version which should go into /usr).
>
> Another issue about this is even worse. How about libraries?
> gdk-pixbuf can optionally be built with GNOME-support. Currently (to
> follow current guidelines) I install it in /opt/gnome if it's built with
> GNOME-support and in /usr/X11R6 otherwise.
> This is _NOT_ good because I think ebuild-writers shouls be able to know
> in which prefix other packages are installed in (especially libs because
> they might have to give that as an option to there packages).

Yes, chaining on your reasoning here, I think that /opt/gnome and
/opt/kde should disappear, and be integrated into /usr.  I personally
think that they are another instance of the /usr/X11R6 problem.  The
only part that is different is the FHS.

The FHS defines /opt as "reserved for the installation of add-on
application software packages".  Those packages can be either
locally-installed or distribution-installed (made evident by the
following quote).

    The minor restrictions on distributions using /opt are necessary
    because conflicts are possible between distribution-installed and
    locally-installed software, especially in the case of fixed
    pathnames found in some binary software.

My interpretation of the FHS, with regard to /opt, is that it should be
the home of binary packages that are installed as a single coherent
piece.  For example, WordPerfect, Acroread, StarOffice, Netscape,
Mozilla(?), VMware, Quake, etc.

I don't see Gnome and KDE fitting into that category, especially since
they are comprised of many different packages each (not one coherent
piece).

> > (4) Potential to have multiple X distributions installed.  Say for
> >     instance that I like to have XFree86-3.3.6, XFree86-4.0.1, and
> >     Accelerated-X installed.  I might like to install these in
> >     hierarchies under /usr/XFree86-3.3.6, /usr/XFree86-4.0.1, and
> >     /usr/Accel-X, then create a symlink /usr/X11R6 that points to the
> >     tree I'm using at the moment.  All other technical concerns with
> >     this scheme aside, this at least creates a problem for ebuilds that
> >     like to install in /usr/X11R6.
>
> This however is (I think) something that speeks for actually installing
> into /usr/X11R6. Because an app compiled against XFree86 3.3.6 or
> Accel-X might not work without recompile against XFree86 4.0.1. (I'm not
> sure about this).

Yeah, I think this is the easiest point to disagree on, and probably the
weakest in the group.  I'll just leave it out.  :-)

Aron