-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Junichi,
On Thursday 17 January 2002 18:49, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > If you are talking about random add-on packages that > is distributed from kde.org or whatever else, > that would be fine, as long as it is independent from Debian. > > We, as Debian, do not use /opt. > > We reserve it for third party software. > Well. No. > There might be a third party software which may want to install in > /opt/kde > > We allow that to happen. > > > Please read and understand the policy, and why we have a good > reputation on not having touched /usr/local. /usr/local and /opt are quite distinct. I appreciate your good intention in presenting your point of view. However, unfortunately, your above statement assumes that policy prohibits use of /opt while it does not, that is it does not explain at all how, why, or where it is prohibited. It is the same answer saying that "/opt violates policy" I heard from many. [+] Prior to saying that, you should have read the relevant section in policy, seeing that it simply delegates all responsibility to FHS, read the relevant section 3.8 in FHS and conceived why I said debian packages may install files in /opt/<package>. I also refer you to the thread titled "KDE Filesystem Structure", and messages in debian-kde explaining the situation: http://lists.debian.org/debian-kde/2002/debian-kde-200201/msg00317.html There is absolutely *no* mention of /opt being reserved for third party vendors [!]. The FHS standard is written in a very plain language, and it explicitly says what is allowed and what is not allowed for distributions. I'm having to restate myself; it shouldn't be this difficult to read a section of a standard. The catch is that /usr/local is for local system administrator's use. Debian cannot install any files there. /opt is different. Let me repeat it. /opt is not the same thing as /usr/local. I will also have to restate that "add-on does not mean third party" as the FHS itself clarifies such a misunderstanding by explicitly and without doubt saying that distributions *can* install files in /opt/<package>, however there are certain justified restrictions on using /opt. A set of subdirs of /opt, not /opt itself for those who are too lazy to read the standard itself, namely "/opt/bin, /opt/doc, /opt/include, /opt/info, /opt/lib, and /opt/man are reserved for local system administrator use". All components of a software package, on the other hand, should be installed in /opt/<package> directory tree. [*] There are also other rules such as the configuration of a package maintained in /etc/opt/<package>. I'm hoping I have made it clear this time. Judging from the responses, it was needed. Before saying anything else, I recommend those interested to *read* that section of FHS in complete, and all other relevant sections, and then state your opinions. I have merely presented the facts. Of course, if you think FHS is badly designed in this respect you should be offering an improvement to FHS which should be directed to the fhs mailing list. AFAICT, removing /opt from the standard would not be an acceptable patch, however you may have thought of an improvement over the existing scheme. Regards, [+] The other typical response that "Well it may not violate the policy, but it does not seem to be consistent with other packages." is a much more valid one. [!] It is so only in your minds. [*] They leave the definition of a "package" to the implementor, as physical packages do not always correspond to the logical package. For instance in debian, many software packages are split into subpackages. - -- 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 iD8DBQE8Rwg+fAeuFodNU5wRAmioAJ0XFEWmNMJ749xtyFESNuSViDRV+wCfSxi/ xc7FoHdSJFuKpWpphK3iGy8= =PyID -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
