Re: [gentoo-dev] any interest in removing /usr/qt and /usr/kde ?

[Joshua J. Berry]

On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 11:16:44PM +0300, Dan Armak wrote:
> On Sunday 19 September 2004 23:07, Joshua J. Berry wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 11:06:29PM +0300, Dan Armak wrote:
> > > /usr/qt,kde was my decision at the time. I didn't see any obvious better
> > > FHS-mandated place to put them in. If there's a better place, I'd at
> > > least like to hear about it.
> >
> > Why /usr instead of /opt?
> Quoting FHS 2.3 (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html):
> "Purpose: /opt is reserved for the installation of add-on application software
> packages."
>
> To this day I haven't heard a good definitin of "add-on" software in this
> context. I don't see qt/kde as being an addon to anything else.

I could easily see KDE/Qt being treated as an "add-on", given that (a) they're
not necessary for core system functionality (whatever that means), and (b) they
are both heavily-bloated, and you probably don't want to pollute /usr...

> Moreover, as Paul points out, in Gentoo we only use /opt so far for
> binary-only packages and for packages that don't obey the general unix
> directory structur (/bin, /lib, /share, /include...). qt/kde has neither of
> these characteristics.

This is true, but I'm wondering if that's maybe a silly move on our part, for
just this reason.

> The FHS says about /usr: "Large software packages must not use a direct
> subdirectory under the /usr hierarchy." I agree this rules out what we're
> doing. The problem is, noone ever proposed a better (more FHS-compliant)
> solution.

I really do think this is what /opt was intended for.  "Add-on" sounds to me
like it's one of those purposefully open-ended words that you can interpret
however you like.  Actually, the whole section on /opt in the FHS reads that way
...

-- 
Joshua J. Berry

"I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere."
    -- /usr/games/fortune