| 1 |
On 2004-09-20 05:47:18 -0400 Malte S. Stretz |
| 2 |
<msquadrat.nospamplease@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
> I don't propose to create something completely new like, say, what |
| 4 |
> Apple uses |
| 5 |
> in MacOS X, just to refine the current state of art. As I said, it's |
| 6 |
> not |
| 7 |
> like we lack space in / or need to look like a "real" SysV system. |
| 8 |
> Linux (or |
| 9 |
> GNU/Linux if you prefer that) is IMO about invention, so why do we |
| 10 |
> try to |
| 11 |
> cram everything into the olde Unix directory structure while it |
| 12 |
> obviously |
| 13 |
> doesn't fit? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Just to be ontologically aligned with those that created the NeXTStep |
| 16 |
hierarchy, OS X (NeXTStep/OpenStep's logical descendants [alongside |
| 17 |
GNUstep]) has it's own UNIX-y/FHS-y hierarchy, from the BSD tools, |
| 18 |
_and_ a NeXT-y hierarchy. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I chimed in before about what I should do with GNUstep, but whereever |
| 21 |
in the UNIX-y hierarchy it lives, it's packages are going to be |
| 22 |
installed underneath it, e.g /opt/GNUstep, /usr/GNUstep, etc. |
| 23 |
Classically, on UNIX-y systems ('cause it can run on Windows, too) the |
| 24 |
preferred spot is /usr/GNUstep. This was likely chosen by the |
| 25 |
original authors thinking "Hey, that's what X11 did...". |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
This is a concern for me, not because GNUstep is "big" and will cause |
| 28 |
"pollution," but because it is _different_ than what the FHS was |
| 29 |
designed for. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
__armando |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives