On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Shawn Walker wrote: > I understand your argument, but because of the C++ lib mess and all of > the special build options we are doing here, I don't think it's > viable.
Why? All binaries should have the runpath compiled into them, and linked with the proper libraries. > Sun has also established the standard on Solaris 10 systems that > well-behaved software lives under /opt and system administrators have > come to depend on that. This was way before 10, but that's besides the point. The software belongs in /usr/. > Doing otherwise is likely to only infuriate admins; just ask on > opensolaris-discuss. Just, just like other stuff with infuriate them as well. The bottom line is that moving forward will cause tension for folks hanging on to the old ways. > Now, as far as Indiana / whatever -- I would concede that installing > KDE under /usr, but all the dependences under /opt would be a good > compromise. I believe that Indiana will slowly morph into Solaris. It is only scratching the surface with Indiana, but there will be a lot of changes coming to Solaris, so get ready for them, IMO. > That would ensure that our dependencies wouldn't conflict with anyone > else's and still allow the expectations of *some* individuals to have > KDE in /usr. I don't understand your point here. > Arguably, we could also have KDE live under /opt for these systems but > install a bunch of symlinks into /usr/bin if so desired. Bzzzt.;-) > I personally don't see what the advantage of installing KDE under /usr > is if you're going to not have any symlinks in /usr/bin anyway. Maybe you misunderstand me then, when I say /usr, I mean /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/etc, /usr/lib, etc.../usr being the base. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group
