Jochem Huhmann wrote: > > * "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The question is: Are distributors delivering "Linux" or are they 3rd > > > party application providers? > > > > > > > DEFINITELY the former. > > Really? So sendmail, apache, inn, Emacs, Netscape, LaTeX and so on are > part of the "OS Linux"? IMHO there is a Kernel and a buzzword "Linux", > but not an "OS Linux" yet. Distributors are selling systems based on the > Linux-kernel, packaged with lots of 3rd party software. There is *no* > way to tell if a particular part of the product belongs to the operating > system or is a third party application yet, because there is no OS > Linux.
I would agree with that assessment. (Sort of doubtful anyone is listening to me anyway now, but I do agree with Jochem on this) Jochem Huhmann wrote: > > In fact, I would be majorly vexed if any kind of package-managed > > software ended up in /usr/local. It is there is no small part to deal > > with just software that cannot be efficiently package-managed > > elsewhere. > > Yes, no package-managed software should go to /usr/local. It should go > to /opt ;-) and Evan Leibovitch wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Again, we've had this discussion on the fhs-discuss list. There is a > > place for that in FHS 2.0; it's called /opt. However, we currently > > don't presume to dictate to 3rd party application providers whether they > > have to use /opt or not. > > Fair enough. My point is, though, that it is still vital for the LSB, in > instances such as this, to suggest rather than dictate. I also thought that this was done long ago, but there is a potential problem in using /opt that could be addressed by applying the structure of /usr to /opt. FHS doesn't seem to specify a suggested structure in /opt, and for the sake of editing a users paths for applications in /opt, it would nice to suggest they use a /opt/bin, /opt/var, etc.. type structure. Common use of /opt has been to put application names in the path (/opt/kde/bin, /opt/staroffice/bin, /opt/wp/bin), which can get messy. Moving to /opt without a structure for /opt would cause more confusion than benefit. That's just a suggestion, IMO it might help, but it's a matter for FHS to discuss first, then the LSB choose to accept or ignore. (But, the FHS site doesn't have a link to the FHS discussion forum, anyone know it?) -- +---- CurrenTEK --- http://www.currentek.com ----+ | "Robert W Current" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | Founder, President of Research and Development | +------------------------------------------------+
