On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Erik Troan wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2000, Jochem Huhmann wrote: > > > We agree on that: /usr is correct for packages that come with the > > operating system. I would like to hear from you (or from the LSB > > actually) *what* is considered to belong to the operating system. So, > > what parts of Redhat (Caldera, Debian, Mandrake, SuSE, ...) belong to > > the "operating system" and what parts are distributed 3rd party > > software? Again: Is Netscape part of the OS? > > Whatever comes with any of them. > > I don't see any need for the contents of /usr/bin to be idential between > LSB systems. I see a strong need for a common intersection across all > distributions, and that intersection (or perhaps some subset of it) should > be the LSB. > > Is your goal really to ensure "ls -lR /usr" is identical on all LSB systems? > If so, why? > I see one reason: It is maybe easier to know what is belonging to what. Personally I think that putting every executable in /usr/bin is bad because its hard know what is user for what. Example: The package super-database contains 6 binary executables used to mantail the super-database. The operator tries to find out which executables it is and does ls /usr/bin and get a list of 1417 files. How easy is it to find out which? //Mats Loman
