| 1 |
On Tue, 2002-07-02 at 14:03, Charles Lacour wrote: |
| 2 |
> > |
| 3 |
> >"Large software packages must not use a direct subdirectory under the |
| 4 |
> >/usr hierarchy." |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I'm reading the FHS 2.2 and I don't see that statement. I can't see |
| 7 |
that FHS forbids a compliant system from having such as directory as |
| 8 |
/usr/kde. If it does please give me a reference; I'd like to get this |
| 9 |
straight. (anyway kde is NOT a "large package" but a sub-hierarchy for |
| 10 |
a whole system of related packages.) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> I can see two possible outs to conforming to both the FHS and Gentoo's stuff. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Either use one of the existing subdirectories of /usr ("bin" and "lib" are about |
| 16 |
> the only two that make any sense) or create a new subdirectory, such as "apps". |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That would be grotesque but might comply with the standard. Well, |
| 19 |
binaries in /usr/lib are those that are "not intended to be executed |
| 20 |
directly by users or by shell scripts" I suppose users execute kde |
| 21 |
binaries ;-) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The problem is that the entire /bin /include /lib /share approach to |
| 24 |
slicing and dicing is awkward and "application directories" is a more |
| 25 |
flexible and more easily maintained approach (like ROX or like MacOS |
| 26 |
X). I use GNU Stow for maintaining local packages in their own |
| 27 |
directories, with symlinks in /usr/local/bin etc, and I find that |
| 28 |
approach to be quite good. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
In this regard I would suggest that Gentoo _lead_ toward a better |
| 31 |
organization and /usr/kde is a good step. I think that it _is_ |
| 32 |
compliant with the FHS 2.2 Standard, but if it's not compliant then the |
| 33 |
standard is wrong^h^h^h^h^h unhelpful. |
Archives