| 1 |
On Monday 20 September 2004 00:35, Joshua J. Berry wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 11:37:55PM +0300, Dan Armak wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sunday 19 September 2004 23:26, Joshua J. Berry wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > and (b) they are both heavily-bloated, |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Bloated in what respect? Size, speed? And what does it have to do with |
| 7 |
> > where we install them to? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Size (specifically, number of files). For example: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> condor@alnath /usr/kde/3.3/bin> ls |wc -l |
| 12 |
> 368 |
| 13 |
> condor@alnath /usr/kde/3.3/lib> ls |wc -l |
| 14 |
> 733 |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> That could pollute the /usr hierarchy quite a bit, which is why I think |
| 17 |
> moving it to straight /usr is a bad idea. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I get the point with /usr/kde not conforming to FHS, but imho the size of |
| 20 |
packages has nothing to do with their location. The main questions are, if |
| 21 |
the data is variable or static, shared or not. Could you enlight me about |
| 22 |
that? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I don't think that it should go in /opt, since the kde stuff is simply not |
| 25 |
more or less optional as everythin else. I wonder if it would be better to |
| 26 |
have /usr/lib/kde/x.y, /usr/share/kde/x.y,... directories!? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Carsten |
Archives