Re: [gentoo-dev] Why the FHS can't be followed

[Luke Ravitch]

On 2002-07-02 15:04, Jean-Michel Smith <jsmith@××××.com> wrote:
> This is a problem we're going to keep running into, perhaps more commonly as
> large, free(dom) office suites, new desktops like gnustep and enlightenment,
> etc. mature.  Perhaps we should be looking for a more general solution,
> rather than making exceptions for gnome and KDE.

I think the /usr/X11R6 approach scales nicely for things like GNUstep
or maybe XFce (don't know much about XFce).  I don't know that E
really calls for its own directory tree yet.  If we think that makes
/usr/X11R6 too cluttered, we could always do something like
/usr/X11R6/desktops.  However, I prefer /usr/X11R6/gnome,
/usr/X11R6/kde, /usr/X11R6/gnustep, etc.

> I mean, if we've decided the FHS is wrong on this particular point, why not
> make the fix more general and all-encompassing?

We (well, _I_) haven't totally decided that it's wrong.  (Still
debating.)  By my reading, putting X-based desktop environments (e.g,
Gnome and KDE) in their own trees under /usr/X11R6 is FHS compatible.
Adding a directory directly under /usr is clearly a violation.

> I would prefer to see /usr/X11R6 remain a relatively "pure" X tree (I never
> liked the way Mandrake dumped a lot of non-core 3rd party X apps into
> /usr/X11R6/bin, for example), and I do not think /usr/X11R6 offers a general

The X tree was never really meant to be "pure".  Look at the whole
xmkmf thing.  "Normal" X programs go in the /usr/X11R6 tree.

> solution.  What about a big database or SAP application that has no GUI, but
> is monstrous and demanding of its own tree, yet for whatever reason doesn't
> belong in /opt?

Those seem like exactly why /opt exists.  Gnome and KDE are
infrastructure, they aren't really "applications".  And, since they
are in many ways extensions on X, I think it makes sense to put them
under the X tree.  The home for monstrous _applications_ (like office
suites or database apps) that demand their own trees and are
self-contained (i.e., nothing depends on them) is /opt.

I only see an exception for things like Gnome and KDE.  (Because, like
X, other applications depend on them.)  And those can't pop up too
often.  Also, we should avoid giving things their own directory tree
unless it's really, really justified.  (The Stow fans are surely gonna
beat me up over that one ;-)

> I don't have any bright ideas on what the directory should be called, per se,
> and I'm sure someone will think of a more clever name than this, but if we're
> going to deviate from the FHS why not make it for just ONE directory, beneath
> which subdirectories for large, free package suites like KDE, Gnome,
> Enlightenment, etc could reside.  Something like:
>
> /usr/sw/kde/2
> /usr/sw/kde/3
> /usr/sw/gnome/1
> /usr/sw/gnome/2
> /usr/sw/enlightenment/16
> /usr/sw/enlightenment/17
>
> and so on.  (sw=software, not a very imaginative name.  Perhaps the long
> version is better, e.g. /usr/software/kde/2, etc.)

The idea has merit, but I'm too concerned that this would encourage
putting too many things into /usr/software.  Stow is fine in the
/usr/local tree for those who like it, but I don't think Gentoo should
embrace it (or something like it) for system packages (i.e., anything
in /usr except for /usr/local).

> In any event, the deviation from the FHS would be limited to one
> directory and more or less isolated from the rest of the filesystem
> tree.  Indeed, given that the FHS doesn't consider the possibility
> of keeping around multiple versions of large software suites like
> KDE and Gnome (something which *should* be provided for, as that is
> in keeping with UNIX's tradition of allowing versioned libraries,
> etc. to coexist nicely), perhaps such a solution could be proposed
> as an amendment to the FHS.

Unix is traditionally good at handling multiple library versions, but
there hasn't been great support for multiple application versions.
(Various sysadmin-specific kludges exist.)  I think that's okay.  I
can run Gnome 1.4 apps under Gnome 2 with only one Gnome tree.  But I
only have one version of each Gnome app.  Good enough for me.

QT makes things stickier for a source-based distro because it requires
all that precompiling stuff.  So, though it's not my absolute
favorite, I'd be okay with something like:

     /usr
       +--->X11R6
             +--->gnome
             |     +--->1
             |     +--->2
             +--->kde
                   +--->2
                   +--->3

Though I'd kinda prefer something like:

     /usr
       +--->X11R6
             +--->gnome1
             +--->gnome2
             +--->kde2
             +--->kde3

That way we don't have to type as many slashes ;-)

With only a couple versions of each desktop environment (or do people
still depend on KDE 1 apps?) and two, three, or four desktop
environments, that's quite manageable.

So I vote for one of the above to layouts.  Picking the right one is a
matter of decided which gives the best breadth/depth ratio.

-- 
Luke