On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 10:29:36PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > Yes, I've read chapter 2, and I just reread it. What about it? I see > nothing there that contradicts what I said above. Both /usr (including > /usr/local) and /opt are static and sharable, so what's the problem?
Oops, I misremembered. Sorry about that. > > > 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. > > > This implies that creating directories is not support. > > No, it implies that creating these unnecessary, redundant, and > arguably just-plain-*wrong* directories is *more* support than the > whole /opt tree needs or deserves. :-p ;-) Uh uh. You don't get to call the FHS wrong without providing a rationale -- one that superceeds the rationale provided by the FHS. > > Personally, I think that the existence of the directories will > > simplify the documentation [...] > > Yeah, that could be. Is it worth it? I don't know -- my gut feeling > is that it's not, but then I (obviously) dislike the whole /opt > heirarchy. Sure, well, if you can come up with something more convincing than the FHS I'm willing to listen. -- Raul
