| 1 |
On Tuesday 21 September 2004 12:47, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> IOW, the way I read it, /usr/kde-3.3 would be a violation, but |
| 4 |
> /usr/kde/3.3 isn't, because it's already a level of indirection. |
| 5 |
[..] |
| 6 |
> Where's the FHS violation? I can't see it? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Yes Duncan, you're right about the KDE path. Didn't had in mind that kde/ |
| 9 |
itself is a level of indirection and x.y/ the real package directory. That's |
| 10 |
o.k., if you read the FHS in a way that other than the mentioned directories |
| 11 |
in /usr are allowed. If you see it from a strict standardization perspective, |
| 12 |
this shouldn't be the case. If every distro adds directories life doesn't get |
| 13 |
easier for people using more than one distro or having to switch to another. |
| 14 |
Reliable paths ease writing and maintaining of all sorts of scripts, too. |
| 15 |
This is my very reason to let kde were it is (for now), btw.. You undermine a |
| 16 |
standard, if you expoit every gap you can find in it. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
>However, as has already come up, given the large (both in size and in |
| 19 |
>dependencies) tree that is KDE, I see nothing at all wrong with putting |
| 20 |
>that dir itself (not the packages or slots in it) directly under /usr, nor |
| 21 |
>can I see how it conflicts with the quoted rules above. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
This is the amusing point. I don't really get the argument to |
| 24 |
move /usr/kde(/x.y) elsewhere because of its size. The way it is now is the |
| 25 |
most simple way to put the whole kde stuff on a extra partition, if you like |
| 26 |
to. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Carsten |
Archives