On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 02:43:27PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Whatever solution is adopted should ideally provide a *general* solution to > this. Enlightenment, TheNextNewHugeProject, and any number of other things > could benefit as well. Indeed, it would be nice if multiple versions of > anything people feel they need to keep multiple versions around for could be > supported. > > In other words, I'd be disappointed if /usr/kde, /usr/qt, and /usr/gnome were > simply added to the 'exceptions list' for /usr (joining its only current member, > 'X11R6'). A scalable solution, mappable to any future large project, is what > IMHO is needed...the easiest and most obvious possibility being the addition of > a directory such as /usr/pkg, which in turn can contain /usr/pkg/kde/3, > /usr/pkg/gnome/2.2, /usr/pkg/qt/3, and so on.
I understand your argument, and I agree with you. However, this misses the point of the LSB as it currently stands. The point of the LSB is not to create "the best" standard, but to create _the_least_OBTRUSIVE_ one. In other words, the idea is to make it as close to what ever most people do already while at the same time being useful. This makes it easier for distributions to comply to the standard, and hence it makes it more likely that they'll take the time to become compliant. Once that's achieved, we can, in steps, proceed to make the standard better. In other words, though I agree that your idea of adding /usr/pkg and making Gnome, KDE, etc lie in it, is likely the best hierarchy, there are other considerations why the LSB should not implement it (i.e. no one would be compliant). There is an LSB-Future project. I wonder if they'll consider this ide. Because it *is* a good idea. -- Daniel Carrera Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept. University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
