On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:26:08PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > On Thursday 17 January 2002 23:11, Jeff Licquia wrote: > > Somehow, I doubt that was the intended meaning of the FHS. > > I see. However, it is not very clear whether that phrase has any meaning. If > it's going to be practically impossible for distributions to install files in > /opt, why is it allowed in the first place? If it's going to be possible for > a local system administrator to form his own packages under various > /opt/<package> then why isn't a location in /usr/local adapted for this > purpose? Who is going to maintain the packages under an /opt/<package>? > System software or the local administrator? That paragraph doesn't seem to be > consistent at all, and it isn't a good division of responsibility.
We can't touch what an admin puts there without violating the FHS. I don't think that typing "apt-get install kde" is explicit assent, because we haven't asked the user a question like: "Hi, just calling to say that we're going to stomp all over your installation in /opt! Cool? (y/n)". It's even less cool because we do what no other Debian package has ever done - install to /opt. Remember that principle of least surprise I told you about a while ago? Don't mess with it. -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <Alias> Wait, I have something for you all <Alias> Romeo and Juliet in 1337!
pgpPqCIBRhFeR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
