Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Luke-Jr <luke-jr@×××××××.org>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] any interest in removing /usr/qt and /usr/kde ?
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:55:30
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] any interest in removing /usr/qt and /usr/kde ? by Thomas Weidner <>
1 On Sunday 19 September 2004 7:50 pm, Thomas Weidner wrote:
2 > I think all know /usr/qt and /usr/kde conflicts with the FHS, but it's
3 > there in order to make it possible to have several versions of kde/qt
4 > installed side by side. If there was a way to make qt and kde
5 > installations FHS compilant without removing the possibility to have
6 > several versions installed side by side,whould there be any interest to
7 > add it to portage or want gentoo developers to stick with the current
8 > solution? I know the current version works, but it conflicts with the
9 > FHS (and therefore with the LSB).
11 IIRC, having /mnt as anything but an empty directory conflicts with the FHS
12 also. Gentoo uses /mnt as FHS's /media
14 On Sunday 19 September 2004 8:16 pm, Dan Armak wrote:
15 > The FHS says about /usr: "Large software packages must not use a direct
16 > subdirectory under the /usr hierarchy." I agree this rules out what we're
17 > doing. The problem is, noone ever proposed a better (more FHS-compliant)
18 > solution.
20 So is XFree86/ in violation of this also?
22 On Sunday 19 September 2004 8:37 pm, Dan Armak wrote:
23 > My point here is that kde itself is not special in any way (although qt
24 > arguably is, since you do want different qt2 and qt3 programs side by side,
25 > but then the qt libraries could live together in /usr with some effort).
27 No need for such versioning of Qt 2 and 3 libs as far as I can tell. Isn't Qt
28 3 binary compatible with 2? (note: this will soon change with Qt 4 not being
29 compatible with either)
30 --
31 Luke-Jr
32 Developer, Utopios


Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: any interest in removing /usr/qt and /usr/kde ? Thomas Weidner <3.14159@×××.net>