| 1 |
On Monday 20 September 2004 20:52, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> No, it sais that those dirs should exist. Not that all docs should go |
| 3 |
> there. In any case following that kind of policy would be pain in the ass |
| 4 |
> for many packages that have different opinions. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Imho it is a better to follow a standard as strict as possible. The next one |
| 7 |
sees it a bit more lax and in the end you can forget the standard. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> > /usr/packages/whatever is as FHS "conform" as /usr/kde. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Probably more as it is not indirect, the FHS does not say anywhere that |
| 12 |
> more dirs are not allowed they just specify the minimal set. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
#Chapter 4. The /usr Hierarchy |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
#Purpose |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
#/usr is the second major section of the filesystem. /usr is shareable, |
| 19 |
#read-only data. That means that /usr should be shareable between various |
| 20 |
#FHS-compliant hosts and must not be written to. Any information that is |
| 21 |
#host-specific or varies with time is stored elsewhere. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
#Large software packages must not use a direct subdirectory under the /usr |
| 24 |
#hierarchy |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
O.k., that doesn't forbid to add another directory and to use this one as a |
| 27 |
new base, but it still doesn't make sense to me. I see this formulation more |
| 28 |
as a gap in the standard. Either unintended or as a backwards compatibility |
| 29 |
thing to get everyone into the boat. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> > From my point of view the kde location is not a big and if we want to |
| 32 |
> > change something, let's do it with qt/kde 4. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> I don't mind keeping things this way, but people seem to want it. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
But they don't have to deal with the implications. Also users with a larger |
| 37 |
install base may have their backup scripts and so on, so such a decision |
| 38 |
should not be made for kde 3.x. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Carsten. |
Archives