Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Not use /opt ? Isn't that what the LSB spec and FHS V2.0 is specifying? > > The FHS and LSB don't specify you have to use /opt. They allow /opt to exist > but there are good techmnical reasons for not doing so - think about NFS > sharing of /usr but not /var and the fact thin client is important > > (The FHS is probably the right place for that discussion) > > The naming issue applies regardless
Usually apps that would be installed in /opt shouldn't be networked anyway - most /opt programs are binary-only restrictively licensed programs that would make this difficult to do legally. Regardless of that, I think the safest thing is to just use /opt/<packagename>. Given the type of software that typically lurks here, there's a good chance of having a trademarked name to use for <packagename>, and there shouldn't be a conflict. For instance, in the Java example you (George) suggest, only Sun has a real claim to using /opt/java, since they own the Java trademark. However, I would recommend that it be /opt/jdk, since it is the JDK. Other Java vendors would need to use their own package names (e.g. /opt/jikes). -- Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://jakob.kaivo.net/
