| 1 |
On 2002-07-02 15:54, Fuper <futurist@×××××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm reading the FHS 2.2 and I don't see that statement. I can't see |
| 3 |
> that FHS forbids a compliant system from having such as directory as |
| 4 |
> /usr/kde. If it does please give me a reference; I'd like to get this |
| 5 |
> straight. (anyway kde is NOT a "large package" but a sub-hierarchy for |
| 6 |
> a whole system of related packages.) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Section 4.1, second paragraph: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Large software packages must not use a direct subdirectory |
| 11 |
under the /usr hierarchy. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
And I think KDE is a "large package" in the same sense that X is. The |
| 14 |
standard states that: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
An exception is made for the X Window System because of |
| 17 |
considerable precedent and widely-accepted practice. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I think it's clear that if it were starting from scratch, the FHS |
| 20 |
wouldn't have a /usr/X11R6 tree. Maybe the question becomes: If the |
| 21 |
FHS didn't have /usr/X11R6, where would it put X? Of course, as you |
| 22 |
pointed out, maybe we just want to do The Right Thing, whatever the |
| 23 |
FHS seems to say. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Luke |
Archives