Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mikael Hallendal <hallski@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@××××××××××.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Programs that depend on X libraries
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:41:07
Message-Id: 999216651.7450.17.camel@zoidberg
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Programs that depend on X libraries by Aron Griffis
1 tor 2001-08-30 klockan 21.31 skrev Aron Griffis:
2 > Jerry A! wrote: [Thu Aug 30 2001, 04:25:12PM EDT]
3 > > : To digress a bit, I think that /usr/pkg would make sense for a set of
4 > > : packages that are maintained via a method separate from the base
5 > > : distribution. For example, if Ximian were to offer a set of rpms to
6 > > : install on Gentoo, they might install into /usr/pkg so as to prevent
7 > >
8 > > However, this breaks common logic and standard practice. I believe that
9 > > according to the FHS this would still go somewhere under /opt. One can
10 > > hope that the Ximian folks would do the right thing and install it under
11 > > /opt/ximian instead of /opt/gnome.
12 >
13 > Agreed. My example was a poor attempt to present a case where /usr/pkg
14 > might be justified on Gentoo.
15
16 Hi!
17
18 This was not a suggestion, more to throw in another aspect. This is
19 truly not the "Linux"-way of doing it and I think the discussions about
20 that our basesystem is installed in the same way as everything else (ie.
21 through portage and not by unpacking the system-tarball). So this ruled
22 out...
23
24 I'm going to drop the /usr/X11R6-discussion as we all (at least from
25 what I understood it agreed everything not X itself being moved into
26 /usr).
27
28 > > : Consistency with other major distributions carries more weight in my
29 > > : mind, primarily because I think it would be a shame if we fail to learn
30 > > : from their experience.
31
32 I more see it that's what we are doing here :) hence the split in
33 /opt/gnome, /opt/kde ... :)
34
35 > That's not my point. I don't mind diverging from Red Hat's methods.
36 > But Red Hat also approached this question once and decided to install in
37 > /usr. It would be foolish of us to assume that they put no thought into
38 > the matter.
39
40 They have probably given this more thought. But I think the problem is
41 bigger on RPM-based system. The RPM (or generally, a binary-based
42 packagesystem) is going to have third party packages created by all
43 kinds of people/companies/groups. It's much more convinient to just put
44 everything in /usr.
45
46 I really like the idea of having GNOME in /opt/gnome and KDE in
47 /opt/KDE. I really don't like /usr/bin contain thousands of binaries. I
48 don't however don't really like the idea of packages being put in
49 different places depending on which USE-flags was used when building the
50 package.
51
52 > > However, GNOME and KDE are meant to be looked at as coherent
53 > > environments that give the user the ability to install multiple
54 > > components. For that reason alone, they do belong in /opt. It's no
55 > > different than choosing not to install all of Mozilla's or
56 > > StarOffice's components.
57 >
58 > It's quite different. Mozilla and StarOffice are distributed as
59 > single coherent programs, consisting of multiple modules. Neither of
60 > these programs split naturally; they are both designed to be run from
61 > their own hierarchy (hence MOZILLA_FIVE_HOME).
62
63 Not sure about KDE but GNOME has the GNOME_PATH env. variable for
64 specifying where GNOME is installed.
65
66 > Gnome and KDE are library frameworks that applications might or might
67 > not link against, raising the question of whether the applications
68 > should move around depending on how they're linked. Gnome and KDE
69 > settle very well into the /usr hierarchy (simply by specifying
70 > --prefix=/usr).
71
72 If we fail to solve the issue about packages optionally linked against
73 GNOME/KDE I think it would be better to install everything in /usr.
74
75 Regards,
76 Mikael Hallendal
77
78 --
79
80 Mikael Hallendal
81 Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
82 CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden