Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The issue isn't that they don't know how to create directories -- the
> issue is that without the directories there as a hint, there's a
> decent chance that it's not going to even occur to them to do. For
> example, there are some debian developers who have paths longer than
> 1k on non-debian systems, yet there was nothing stopping them from
> creating an /opt/bin on those non-debian systems.
There was nothing stopping them from creating links in /usr/local/bin
either -- why would they get the hint all of a sudden from /opt/bin
when they didn't from /usr/local/bin? I think that /opt/bin is a bad
idea in the first place -- it offers *nothing* that /usr/local/bin
doesn't already provide; has no advantages whatsoever; and encourages
the nasty habit of using /opt, which I think should be encouraged to
disappear completely. :-)
> If the directories exist *and* are ready to use, that final step --
> creating symlinks -- can be documented in a sentence or so. [And maybe
> someone would write up a page or so of examples for true novices.]
We can do just that with /usr/local/bin -- no need to create an extra,
redundant, non-required, ambiguous, and confusing extra bin dir. One
bin dir for the local sysadmin really *should* be plenty. The fact
that a second one is *allowed* does not mean we should *encourage* it,
and creating an empty /opt/bin is tantamount to encouraging it, imo.
As for the whole "hint" concept, I'd rather see *real* documentation
than vague (and misguided) hints littering the filesystem.
I think we should *support* the /opt nonsense, since it's effectively
a requirement, but I think we should stop short of encouraging or
promoting its use.
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
