On Wednesday 16 January 2002 12:09 pm, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > On Wednesday 16 January 2002 12:27, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 08:55:16PM +0000, James Thorniley wrote: > > > I'm supported also by Mosfet, see www.mosfet.org/fss.html for an actual > > > argument for why directory layout should be more logical. > > > > You say that like it's a good thing. Mosfet's on drugs. Whether he's in this discussion or not, a personal attack is a flame, so not really relevant.
> It just happens that piece by Mosfet is well written. > > Although I cant see how putting kde in /opt/kde would be more logical.. If > anywhere, I would put it in /usr/kde. Like X it is a system on its own, "A > system within the system". > > -Allan The reason I haven't been suggesting /usr/kde3 is it definitely would be against FHS. However I agree it would be better than /opt/kde3, especially if we take note of Mark Brown's argument (from Re: Interpreting FHS): > Deciding to use it [/opt] for KDE would, however, result in large numbers of > admins becoming more than a little grumpy with you as they notice that > you have decided to dump all of KDE onto their root filesystem. I assume by this we mean people who have /usr on a seperate partition, which is an argument for using /usr/kde3, but that means getting FHS changed.. hmm, possible but difficult ;) Thanks, James
