| 1 |
On Tuesday 02 July 2002 03:06 pm, Luke Ravitch wrote: |
| 2 |
> My feeling is that nothing in the /usr tree should depend on anything |
| 3 |
> in /opt. Things in /opt are meant to be self-contained. If we put |
| 4 |
> Gnome and KDE in /opt, where do we put apps that optionally depend on |
| 5 |
> them? E.g, XMMS isn't really a gnome app (and so shouldn't be under |
| 6 |
> /opt/gnome) but can have Gnome dependencies (for the applet). |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
That is a very interesting point I hadn't considered. I think I agree with |
| 9 |
you as well (not that my personal opinion matters a whole lot in this context |
| 10 |
:) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Though I'm generally a big supporter, I think the FHS might be wrong |
| 13 |
> on this one. Gnome and KDE should go under /usr/gnome and /usr/kde. |
| 14 |
> I do agree that adding an immediate subdirectory of /usr is not |
| 15 |
> something that should be taken lightly. However, Gnome and KDE are |
| 16 |
> significantly entrenched as part of Gentoo that they might warrant an |
| 17 |
> X-like exception. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
This is a problem we're going to keep running into, perhaps more commonly as |
| 20 |
large, free(dom) office suites, new desktops like gnustep and enlightenment, |
| 21 |
etc. mature. Perhaps we should be looking for a more general solution, |
| 22 |
rather than making exceptions for gnome and KDE. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I mean, if we've decided the FHS is wrong on this particular point, why not |
| 25 |
make the fix more general and all-encompassing? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I would prefer to see /usr/X11R6 remain a relatively "pure" X tree (I never |
| 28 |
liked the way Mandrake dumped a lot of non-core 3rd party X apps into |
| 29 |
/usr/X11R6/bin, for example), and I do not think /usr/X11R6 offers a general |
| 30 |
solution. What about a big database or SAP application that has no GUI, but |
| 31 |
is monstrous and demanding of its own tree, yet for whatever reason doesn't |
| 32 |
belong in /opt? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I don't have any bright ideas on what the directory should be called, per se, |
| 35 |
and I'm sure someone will think of a more clever name than this, but if we're |
| 36 |
going to deviate from the FHS why not make it for just ONE directory, beneath |
| 37 |
which subdirectories for large, free package suites like KDE, Gnome, |
| 38 |
Enlightenment, etc could reside. Something like: |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
/usr/sw/kde/2 |
| 41 |
/usr/sw/kde/3 |
| 42 |
/usr/sw/gnome/1 |
| 43 |
/usr/sw/gnome/2 |
| 44 |
/usr/sw/enlightenment/16 |
| 45 |
/usr/sw/enlightenment/17 |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
and so on. (sw=software, not a very imaginative name. Perhaps the long |
| 48 |
version is better, e.g. /usr/software/kde/2, etc.) |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
In any event, the deviation from the FHS would be limited to one directory and |
| 51 |
more or less isolated from the rest of the filesystem tree. Indeed, given |
| 52 |
that the FHS doesn't consider the possibility of keeping around multiple |
| 53 |
versions of large software suites like KDE and Gnome (something which |
| 54 |
*should* be provided for, as that is in keeping with UNIX's tradition of |
| 55 |
allowing versioned libraries, etc. to coexist nicely), perhaps such a |
| 56 |
solution could be proposed as an amendment to the FHS. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Anyway, just some thoughts from the peanut gallary for your consideration. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Jean. |
Archives