| 1 |
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002 17:45:55 -0700 Luke Ravitch <luke@××××××××××.com> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 2002-07-02 15:54, Fuper <futurist@×××××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > I'm reading the FHS 2.2 and I don't see that statement. I can't |
| 5 |
> > see that FHS forbids a compliant system from having such as |
| 6 |
> > directory as/usr/kde. If it does please give me a reference; I'd |
| 7 |
> > like to get this straight. (anyway kde is NOT a "large package" |
| 8 |
> > but a sub-hierarchy for a whole system of related packages.) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Section 4.1, second paragraph: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Large software packages must not use a direct subdirectory |
| 13 |
> under the /usr hierarchy. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> And I think KDE is a "large package" in the same sense that X is. |
| 16 |
> The standard states that: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> An exception is made for the X Window System because of |
| 19 |
> considerable precedent and widely-accepted practice. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I think it's clear that if it were starting from scratch, the FHS |
| 22 |
> wouldn't have a /usr/X11R6 tree. Maybe the question becomes: If the |
| 23 |
> FHS didn't have /usr/X11R6, where would it put X? Of course, as you |
| 24 |
> pointed out, maybe we just want to do The Right Thing, whatever the |
| 25 |
> FHS seems to say. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Thanks for all the responses; now I understand a lot more. The person |
| 29 |
who started me on this track (another group) is one of those |
| 30 |
curmudgeons who likes to kibitz but promptly declines to lift a finger |
| 31 |
to do any work that is helpful. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Collins Richey - Denver Area - WWTLRD? |
| 35 |
gentoo(since 01/01/01) 2.4.18+(ext3) xfce-sylpheed-mozilla |
Archives