-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 03 July 2002 2:39 am, Collins wrote: > How does the lfs recommend handling large application packages that > need to have multiple concurrent incompatible versions? It is not > obvious from the standard what would be the best course of action. > > Is it recommended/permitted to put these in /opt/kde2, /opt/kde3, > /opt/gnome, etc.? > > kde in particular is a poor candidate for the /usr hierarchy since it > contains editable configuration files all over the place, and the /usr > hierarchy is supposed to be read-only. > Debian manages to have KDE 3 without having configuration files in /usr. Admittedly /usr/share/config is a symlink to /etc/kde3, but only because we haven't changed the source. Any other files are not likely to be edited by the user (XML UI files etc).
> Placing these packages in /opt does mean, of course, that other > smaller independant packages in the /usr hierarchy will be dependant > on kde/gnome packages in the /opt hierarchy. Is this considered bad > form? > > What is your opinion? > > Thanks, - -- David Pashley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9Iry6YsCKa6wDNXYRAvIxAJ40i0Y+AoXntSQ6e4H6G/rcTjfSQQCfUoUt UWp1vYCkP37yG2mnfUCYIyk= =5csn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
