Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 05:30:26AM +0100, Terje Kvernes wrote: > > > because stuff in /opt is supposed to be static packages, not > > dependent on anything else on the system, least of all other > > packages (heck, formally even depending on glibc is bad). this > > also works the other way around, no packages should ideally depend > > on anything located in /opt. > > Oh. The full magnitude of the problem suddenly dawns on me.
I know the feeling. in this matter it's quite depressing. > /opt is bad because it's contents are not supposed to be dependent > on anything else. /usr/local is bad because it's meant for > non-distribution packages. /usr/share is bad because it's meant for > read-only data. That only leaves /usr, but that conflicts with FHS. correct. well, /usr/share is also supposed to be architecture independent. ey, we'd solve all this if we'd rewrite all the KDE and Gnome libraries in POSIX-compliant sh. :-) > I guess that all that can be done is change the FHS. I'll post an > email to the LSB-Future mailing list tomorrow. They are currently > discussing what to do about KDE and Gnome. Perhaps a > not-too-distant version of the LSB will offer a solution. I'm honestly not holding my breath. the advocacy I hear from people who work with FHS and LSB basically point to "KDE and Gnome are broken", or "do you really need several versions of KDE in your distribution". > Thanks for clarifying all this. you're welcome. by the way, I'm probably visiting my girlfriend at UMD in late March. hope the snow is gone by then. :-) -- Terje -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
