-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi DanielS,
I wouldn't suggest those changes without thinking over how it would be done.
On Wednesday 16 January 2002 23:55, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> Using that as the KDE root is just SILLY BAD WRONG EVIL.
>
> Do you also advocate having the apache root in /usr/lib/apache? After a
> while it starts to defeat the whole point of /usr/bin. What next? A
> Debconf note saying that you have to have "export
> PATH=$PATH:/usr/lib/kde3/bin" in your ~/.<whatever> to be able to run
> startkde?
>
Apache is beyond the scope of discussion I think.
If you hesitate to read FHS carefully, you'll see that those issues have all
been taken care of (somewhat).
The configuration goes to /etc/opt/<package>. Front ends for packages,
binaries that the user can invoke from command line, can be linked to
/opt/bin. Or wait, is the FHS being a bit vague here?
Packages
may provide "front-end" files intended to be placed in (by linking or
copying) these reserved directories by the local system administrator,
but shall function normally in the absence of these reserved
directories.
This is a serious ambiguity. Does this allow distributions to place symbolic
links to /opt/bin automatically I wonder. I must ask the FHS people. If this
can be clarified, there is absolutely no reason why /opt shouldn't be used in
debian (except "hysterical raisins" which I don't take to be that relevant).
However, as you indicate, if FHS compliance requires that people should
change their PATH variables to run software installed in /opt or use
ridiculously long pathnames then it is clearly something that should be
avoided. My feeling is that packages ought to be able to install front end
files by linking into the /opt/bin, etc. However, that is discussion of the
FHS and not discussion on debian KDE packages.
[snip]
>
> I register my vote of disgust. It IS difficult, in fact, because it
> means we fuck around with how Debian has done things since well before
> the Dark Ages. When you ask people what the best thing about Debian is,
> they respond "policy" (in general; some say dpkg/apt). So what are we
> doing? Random crap, I hear you say?
>
> Don't.
>
> Please.
Of course I won't do any sort of change before there is some form of
consensus. It's a small change, but without agreement it can't be done. Note
that you are saying it is bad because it's a change to something old. :)
There are two choices KDE programmers favor:
1) Installing into /opt/kde{version}
2) Installing into /usr
Debian does the latter, but... kde2 vs. kde3.
Thanks,
- --
Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8RgKQfAeuFodNU5wRAha3AJ9CcFJtUQQulXVPGUw1+nqXt5U0YACfYVXw
z51tSVO/C38g1Q0wRFHq+mQ=
=JGH4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
