Re: [gentoo-dev] any interest in removing /usr/qt and /usr/kde ?

[Joshua J. Berry]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 07:10:02AM +0300, Dan Armak wrote:
> On Monday 20 September 2004 01:35, Joshua J. Berry wrote:
> > No, it's not special, but I think most people probably won't want a PATH
> > variable that's 10,000 directories long. ;)  The only thing that makes it
> > "special" IMHO is how big it is.
> That isn't affected by our choice of /usr/kde or /opt. 10,000 PATH dirs
> under /opt are equally as bad. So I don't see your point here?

Assuming I understood you correctly, you made the point that if KDE goes into
/opt and gets its own directory, others might want to do that too ...

My point is that KDE should be an exception to the
"packages-shouldn't-have-their-own-dirs" rule because it's so big.

> Is it that you
> want to decrease the sheer amount of files in the /usr filesystem?

I would like to keep the pollution in /usr down, yes.

> As far as
> I'm concerned, all portage-installed packages ought to go in /usr except for
> those that go in /bin /lib etc; the usage of /opt has so far meant the
> package was lacking in some respect.

I don't know.  Maybe it makes more sense to me because that's just always the
way I've installed KDE -- separate from everything else.  I can see the benefits
of the "everything-in-/usr" argument too (pollution notwithstanding).

It seems like a lot of people prefer to have Qt/KDE split out from the normal
/usr tree.  But some people are complaining because /usr/kde doesn't follow the
FHS.

/opt keeps both groups happy.  It keeps KDE separate (and lets you install
multiple versions side-by-side), and it follows the FHS.  Except now we have a
third group of people who don't like /opt ... and I guess I don't understand why
that is.  What do people have against /opt (yes, I know about current Gentoo
policy)?

-- 
Joshua J. Berry

"I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere."
    -- /usr/games/fortune