Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Our job is to give them a better alternative.
>
> > The fact that the FHS makes their existence optional, means that it's
> > not insisting that we install them.
>
> True, but this doesn't solve any problems as far as I can see.
The status quo is that t
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 11:55:09AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> And in any case, I meant wrong in the moral sense, not the legal
> sense.
I don't see that that's a meaningful distinction for this case.
--
Raul
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You don't get to call the FHS wrong without providing a rationale
Sure I do -- it's one of the benefits of living in the US of A. :-)
But in any case, I'm not calling the FHS wrong, I'm calling the actual
*use* of /opt wrong. FHS doesn't require that u
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 11:28:45AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Andreas Voegele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Firstly, none of the existing applications that go to /opt use these
> > directories. For example, the version of Applixware that SuSE ships
> > goes to /opt/applix and is started with /
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 03:03:52PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> I think we should create /opt because the FHS requires it, and
> possibly /opt/README.debian if the FHS allows it, but nothing more.
FHS doesn't allow us to create /opt/README.debian, at least not
without getting the sysadmin to be in
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 11:24:37AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> It strikes me that if all the distributions include these directories
> by default, that ISV installer writers will put stuff like:
>
> for i in $PACKAGE_DIR/bin/* ; do ln -s $i /opt/bin ; done
>
> in their install scripts. This i
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 10:19:04AM +0200, Andreas Voegele wrote:
> You suggest creating the following directories by default:
>
> /etc/opt, /opt/bin, /opt/doc, /opt/include, /opt/info, /opt/lib,
> /opt/man and /var/opt.
Yes.
> Firstly, none of the existing applications that go to /opt use these
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry for the aol mode, but I fully agree.
>
> If the lack of /opt is not a bug, and no package in the system
> requires it, then I don't see the point in creating it.
I think we should create /opt because the FHS requires it, and
possibly /opt/README.
On 22 Sep 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
> 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 ;-)
>
> Basically, while it may be a form of support, I think it's crossing
> the li
Andreas Voegele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> In my opinion, the installation guide should suggest creating
> >> an /opt partition if the user intends to install commercial
> >> software like Applixware, Civilization or the Oracle RDBMS, but
> >> nothing else should be done.
>
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 04:18:07PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Oh c'mon. You're talking about people who are smart enough to create
> > symlinks in /opt/bin, but aren't smart enough to create the dir in the
> > first place? I don't buy it. :-)
>
> T
>> In my opinion, the installation guide should suggest creating
>> an /opt partition if the user intends to install commercial
>> software like Applixware, Civilization or the Oracle RDBMS, but
>> nothing else should be done.
> What problem is solved by not providing the skel
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
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 05:51:09PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > 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 thi
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 05:51:09PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> 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 pla
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 h
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 04:18:07PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Oh c'mon. You're talking about people who are smart enough to create
> symlinks in /opt/bin, but aren't smart enough to create the dir in the
> first place? I don't buy it. :-)
The issue isn't that they don't know how to create dir
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 10:29:20AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Well, 2.0 and the 2.1 both say that these dirs are a) reserved for
> > local sysadmin use, and, more importantly, b) packages "shall function
> > normally in the absence of these reserved di
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 11:05:36PM +0200, Andreas Voegele wrote:
> In my opinion, the installation guide should suggest creating an /opt
> partition if the user intends to install commercial software like
> Applixware, Civilization or the Oracle RDBMS, but nothing else should
> be done.
What probl
> While that's true, I think it's important to remember that we're
> designing Debian for our users. As I see it, creating these
> directories, and possibly even supplying some documentation
> suggesting how they might be used, would be a good thing for our
> users. And, I do
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 10:29:20AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Well, 2.0 and the 2.1 both say that these dirs are a) reserved for
> local sysadmin use, and, more importantly, b) packages "shall function
> normally in the absence of these reserved directories."
While that's true, I think it's impo
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> FHS 2.0 specifies the following directories:
> /opt/bin
> /opt/doc
> /opt/include
> /opt/info
> /opt/lib
> /opt/man
Well, 2.0 and the 2.1 both say that these dirs are a) reserved for
local sysadmin use, and, more importantly, b) packages "shall function
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 11:32:23AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> I think we should agree to do absolutely nothing with the /opt
> directory, other than create it.
I suggest that we create whatever [empty] directory structure FHS
specifies.
FHS 2.0 specifies the following directories:
/etc/opt
/op
"J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 20:23:00 -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> > The primary reason distributions are permitted to install software in
> > /opt is that some commercial software may come hard-coded that way.
> > Given the DFSG, that should never
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyway, if those dirs should exist (and I think they probably should as
> they're useful for providing symlinks to other dirs to keep paths and the
> like sane) should we actually create them or rely on the sysadmin to do
> that if they plan to use those
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 02:25:55AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 05:14:28PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > > This draft includes the recently discussed additions to /opt.
> >
> > Debian does not use /opt; we reserve it for third parties and end
> > users.
[...]
> If I am n
On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 05:14:28PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > This draft includes the recently discussed additions to /opt.
>
> Debian does not use /opt; we reserve it for third parties and end
> users.
Doesn't the FHS call for at some point the standard /usr/local subdirs be
found in /opt (i
On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 20:23:00 -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> The primary reason distributions are permitted to install software in
> /opt is that some commercial software may come hard-coded that way.
> Given the DFSG, that should never apply to Debian.
Not to Debian proper ("main"), but it cou
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Distributions may install software in /opt, but
> Ick -- we may be allowed to do so, but we're not gonna, not if I and
> many many others have anything to say about it. :-)
The primary reason distributions are permitted to install software in
/opt is
Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> FYI
> I am getting very close to an FHS 2.1 release. Is the current draft
> something Debian can use as it stands?
We are already targetting 2.1, mainly in order to avoid moving
everything out of /var/lib for 2.0 compatibility, then moving it back
fo
FYI
I am getting very close to an FHS 2.1 release. Is the current draft
something Debian can use as it stands?
--- Start of forwarded message ---
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sub
31 matches
Mail list logo
