Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] any interest in removing /usr/qt and /usr/kde ?
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:52:39
Message-Id: 200409202052.36088.pauldv@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] any interest in removing /usr/qt and /usr/kde ? by Carsten Lohrke
1 On Monday 20 September 2004 19:35, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
2 > On Monday 20 September 2004 18:37, Dan Armak wrote:
3 > > The kde directories include things under
4 > > share/, like various docs, that make absolutely no sense somewhere
5 > > under /usr/lib.
6 >
7 > Exactly this does not conform to the FHS iirc.
8 >
9 > # The following directories, or symbolic links to directories, must be
10 > # in /usr/share, if the corresponding subsystem is installed:
11 > #dict, doc, games, info, locale, nls, sgml, terminfo, database, tmac, xml,
12 > #zoneinfo
13 > #It is recommended that application-specific, architecture-independent
14 > #directories be placed here.
15 > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html
16 >
17 > Which means e.g. kde's docs should go in /usr/share/doc/kde. Since we want
18 > to allow multiple kde versions, it would need to be
19 > either /usr/share/doc/kde/X.Y or /usr/share/doc/kdeX.Y. We do the latter
20 > for most ebuilds, since it is - in case of docs at least - policy to
21 > install them in ${D}/usr/share/docs/${PF}
22
23 No, it sais that those dirs should exist. Not that all docs should go there.
24 In any case following that kind of policy would be pain in the ass for many
25 packages that have different opinions.
26
27 >
28 > > I think that if we have to move,
29 > > a /usr/packages/{kde,qt}/<version> pattern is best. ('patterns'
30 > > apparently being replaced by a four-letter name - could someone enlighten
31 > > me why that would be necessary?)
32 >
33 > /usr/packages/whatever is as FHS "conform" as /usr/kde.
34
35 Probably more as it is not indirect, the FHS does not say anywhere that more
36 dirs are not allowed they just specify the minimal set. It is perfectly legal
37 to make aditions that do not violate the rules in the FHS. The /usr/packages
38 idea does not violate this idea.
39
40 > From my point of view the kde location is not a big and if we want to
41 > change something, let's do it with qt/kde 4.
42
43 I don't mind keeping things this way, but people seem to want it.
44
45 Paul
46
47 --
48 Paul de Vrieze
49 Gentoo Developer
50 Mail: pauldv@g.o
51 Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] any interest in removing /usr/qt and /usr/kde ? Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o>