Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Rick Younie]

"In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:"
> 
> You're also almost as good as stating that one cannot
> backup /etc, toss in a spare drive, do the install off a local
> NFS/FTP mount (less than 2 hours by a long shot) throw /etc
> back in (no need for a tape even, whatta concept!) and then get
> the rest of the data from there in under 2 hours.

I'm digging through my newsspool & dejanews for an answer to this
and can't find it.  If the docs mention it I can't find it.
Can you help?

You mention a local NFS mount for installing.  I'm doing
some practice installs from scratch as practice for a local
(Vancouver) installfest next weekend and the install procedure
mentions NFS as an option for installing the base system.  Is it
possible to NFS mount ftp.debian.org for this?  Or is the option
only there for mounting local file systems?  If it's possible
to remotely mount, could you tell the incantation?  I must have
tried pretty much every one except the right one.

Thanks.
Rick
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://vcn.bc.ca/~rick

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Anders Arnholm]

>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
 > How are you going to get the data on to the drive without a minimum
 > installation on it in the first place?

Booting in a way that lets you restore the data with out having to install the 
system. What you need depends on the kind  backup you have. In the most simple 
tape backup using tar or dump, you need the recur floppy,  (it atleast have 
tar, then you could restore the system with.

mount /dev/hda1 /target; cd /target ; tar x

Al decant backup system should have a restore utility that you could boot on 
from a floppy and restore the system.

/ Balp

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Lamb]

Thursday, September 16, 1999, 3:23:25 AM, Marek wrote:
>> How are you going to get the data on to the drive without a minimum
>> installation on it in the first place?
> Geez (that's your favorite expression, ain't it?) - you really don't know
> what backups are for.

I know what they are for.

> They are there to BACK UP everything, make a snapshot of your critical
> system so that you can restore it within at most TWO hours. Backing up data
> only is good on non-critical sites, the other category requires fast
> restoration of the entire system. In that light reinstallation and
> reconfiguration is not an option.

It isn't an option.  OK, I again ask how you propose to get the data onto
the system without a minimal installation?  What, put the tape on the hard
drive and wait for osmosis to set in?  Do the "bit transfer dance" and rely
upon the good will of the gods?

You're also almost as good as stating that one cannot backup /etc, toss in
a spare drive, do the install off a local NFS/FTP mount (less than 2 hours by
a long shot) throw /etc back in (no need for a tape even, whatta concept!) and
then get the rest of the data from there in under 2 hours.

Funny, I've seen that done several times across two different jobs now.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Marek Habersack]

* Steve Lamb said:
> > or /usr/opt, you are implicitly violating the license, since computer Baz
> > has the same /usr tree as Bar. But, when opt is at /opt, it is not shared
> > and such hassles can be avoided (of course, it can be even more easily
> > avoided by staying away from non-free software, but then that would
> > eliminate any need for /opt).
> 
> Thank you for finally providing a very good reason for a new top level
> domain.  About the only thing missing, IMHO, is a specific cite from the FHS
> (section number would be good) but I'll take your word for it.
Well, you finally admitted you haven't read the standard. Then go and do it.
IT seems to be your habit to rant and flame without having any *TECHNICAL*
(your another favorite expression) bacground on the subject. RTFM, kid.

marek

pgpvy0giidCZm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Marek Habersack]

* Sven LUTHER said:

> > > taken over by most linux distribs these days. on my sun, i have a /opt 
> > > but no
> > > /usr/local for example.
> > Correct. Linux distros are generally a mixture of SystemV and BSD standards
> > - see the bootup init methods, for one. /opt is a good thing from the SV
> > world, /usr/local is a good thing from BSD. Why not to use both?
> 
> cause they are there for the same thing, so only one is needed ?
Not quite so. /usr/local is for *local* stuff - that is one fully under
control by the local admin. /opt is for optional stuff (yes, it's a
confusing term) which I understand as something that's not in the given
distribution of either commercial or free OS, but isn't also in the realm of
the local admin - for example commercial software packages.

marek


pgpiPbVIbJPfd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Strange mail from Anders Arnholm (was Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...]))

[Anders Arnholm]

>>>Paul Slootman wrote:
 > especially strange there (besides the fact that he uses X-Face, which I
 > thought had died out :-)

I must have misse the first mail, and I have never seen amy problem
exect that my filters for repying on some QP mails sometimes gets wrong
and add nice looking Swedish chars as =E6. But I don't think that that
ever happend in a header before. (And all these messages are in
English...) The X-Face using is not that unuslall in News grups, I seen
them a loot. In mail they are more unusall, but look great in Exmh.

Btw, if anyone can find something strange in my mails, please send me a
full copy so I can look into the problem.

/ Anders

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Marek Habersack]

* Steve Lamb said:
> Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 12:29:30 PM, Anders wrote:
> > Then can you tell me how your three steps are easyer and faster them our
> > one step?
> 
> How are you going to get the data on to the drive without a minimum
> installation on it in the first place?
Geez (that's your favorite expression, ain't it?) - you really don't know
what backups are for. They are there to BACK UP everything, make a snapshot
of your critical system so that you can restore it within at most TWO hours.
Backing up data only is good on non-critical sites, the other category
requires fast restoration of the entire system. In that light reinstallation
and reconfiguration is not an option.

marek


pgpUpXCyLHazC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Strange mail from Anders Arnholm (was Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...]))

[Paul Slootman]

On Wed 15 Sep 1999, Philip Hands wrote:
> 
> Is anyone else seeing all this header drivel in everything that Anders
> mails, or have I got something in my gnus setup totally screwed ?
> 
> The scattering of 's in the Subject seem somewhat suspicious to me.

Actually, I can't find any Subject in the header you included (which you
apparently included twice?). Nor do I see any To or Cc lines in your
included header, which I _do_ have in my copy of Anders' message. Nothing
especially strange there (besides the fact that he uses X-Face, which I
thought had died out :-)

> > Xref: sheikh.hands.com debian:30380 debian.devel:24066

You expand locally to a newsgroup?


Paul Slootman
-- 
home:   [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wurtel.demon.nl/
work:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.murphy.nl/
debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.debian.org/
isdn4linux: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.isdn4linux.de/

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Sven LUTHER]

On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> * Sven LUTHER said:
> 
> > > > > How do you know I don't do just that, via symlinks?  I bet you'd 
> > > > > never have
> > > > > guessed I have /usr/src/linux symlinked to /sys
> > > > 
> > > > OK, now argue it as a standard for everyone as /opt is.
> > > /opt is a de-facto standard. By usage. By tradition. By habit. By 
> > > convence.
> > 
> > If i remember well, /opt is a Systeme 5 stuff, will /usr/local is a BSD 
> > stuff,
> > taken over by most linux distribs these days. on my sun, i have a /opt but 
> > no
> > /usr/local for example.
> Correct. Linux distros are generally a mixture of SystemV and BSD standards
> - see the bootup init methods, for one. /opt is a good thing from the SV
> world, /usr/local is a good thing from BSD. Why not to use both?

cause they are there for the same thing, so only one is needed ?

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Greenland]

Good god, Jon is even reading Tom Christianson wrong. Tom said to
integrate responses after the quoted text, whether in whole or in part,
so that it reads like a conversation.

And since Jon is such a big fan of announcing his additions to his kill
file (like anybody else really gives a shit) *plonk*.

On 15-Sep-99, 11:50 (CDT), Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> Good god.  Steven is even quoting Tom Christianson wrong.  Tom said not to
> stick the WHOLE message at the bottom, where it doesn't provide context.
> What I have been doing falls in the realm of "providing context".

-- 
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Lamb]

Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 3:56:02 PM, Richard wrote:
> Did you *ever* even *attempt* to read the FHS?  It took me less time
> for me to find this than it did for you to whine about not having a
> specific cite.

Did anyone else who were quoting from it?  All of them did the same thing
I did, read up on /opt and why it was placed where it was.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Richard Kaszeta]

Steve Lamb writes ("Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? 
[was: ...])"):
>Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 11:25:11 PM, Jakob wrote:
>> software. FHS states that /usr must be sharable over a network - e.g. if I
>
>Thank you for finally providing a very good reason for a new top level
>domain.  About the only thing missing, IMHO, is a specific cite from the FHS
>(section number would be good) but I'll take your word for it.

Did you *ever* even *attempt* to read the FHS?  It took me less time
for me to find this than it did for you to whine about not having a
specific cite.

Section 4.  First Paragraph:

4 The /usr Hierarchy

/usr is the second major section of the filesystem. /usr is shareable,
read-only data. That means that /usr should be shareable between
various hosts running FHS-compliant and should not be written to. Any
information that is host-specific or varies with time is stored
elsewhere.

(from http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.0/fhs-4.html)

-- 
Richard W Kaszeta   PhD. Candidate and Sysadmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   University of MN, ME Dept
http://www.menet.umn.edu/~kaszeta

Strange mail from Anders Arnholm (was Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...]))

[Philip Hands]

Hi,

Is anyone else seeing all this header drivel in everything that Anders
mails, or have I got something in my gnus setup totally screwed ?

The scattering of 's in the Subject seem somewhat suspicious to me.

Cheers, Phil.

Anders Arnholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In-reply-to: morpheus's message of Wed, 15 Sep 1999 10:58:06 -0700.
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> From: Anders Arnholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-url: http://www.acc.umu.se/~balp
> 
> X-Face: 
> Z(1yYW"8;~'h^Hqgo>ry%qkgGUdr+8zsHIddmuHj1]nQ\$VgWLGrrj(8kld^2A4&P;@#&{(
>   k$"N]?udz*o4V/y+~fO{qWtvkL6;J$%9(g0]!`%56^ PROTECTED];
>   7Ej^zO6(ihjKy<|H^[V(E6u
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 21:20:43 +0200
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Gnus-Mail-Source: file:~/Mailbox
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> X-Mailing-List:  archive/latest/44813
> X-Loop: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Precedence: list
> Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Lines: 15
> Xref: sheikh.hands.com debian:30380 debian.devel:24066
> 
> In-reply-to: morpheus's message of Wed, 15 Sep 1999 10:58:06 -0700.
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> From: Anders Arnholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-url: http://www.acc.umu.se/~balp
> 
> X-Face: 
> Z(1yYW"8;~'h^Hqgo>ry%qkgGUdr+8zsHIddmuHj1]nQ\$VgWLGrrj(8kld^2A4&P;@#&{(
>   k$"N]?udz*o4V/y+~fO{qWtvkL6;J$%9(g0]!`%56^ PROTECTED];
>   7Ej^zO6(ihjKy<|H^[V(E6u
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 21:20:43 +0200
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Gnus-Mail-Source: file:~/Mailbox
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> X-Mailing-List:  archive/latest/44813
> X-Loop: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Precedence: list
> Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Lines: 15
> Xref: sheikh.hands.com debian:30380 debian.devel:24066
> 
> >>>Steve Lamb wrote:
>  > Nor is it the case with /opt.
> 
> As long as you don't count the "Filesystem Hierarchy Standard".
> 
> / Balp
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Lamb]

Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 1:44:38 PM, Raul wrote:
> Then perhaps this entire discussion should be moved to the fhs-discuss
> list.

Operative word was, well, was.  Discussion over.  Someone finally read
what I wrote and provided what I asked for instead of trying to beat me into
submission with reasons which did not fit the criterion presented.


-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Raul Miller]

> Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 12:20:43 PM, Anders wrote:
> > As long as you don't count the "Filesystem Hierarchy Standard".

On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 12:32:13PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Considering this thread was a criticism of the inclusion of it into that
> standard, one cannot count that.

Then perhaps this entire discussion should be moved to the fhs-discuss
list.

You're not going to get the FHS changed by discussing it on debian-devel
list.  And, if changing the FHS is the thing of value which would be
accomplished in this discussion then this discussion is valueless on
this list.

-- 
Raul

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Lamb]

Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 12:37:41 PM, Anders wrote:
>  > Thank you for finally providing a very good reason for a new top level
>  > domain.  About the only thing missing, IMHO, is a specific cite from the 
> FHS
>  > (section number would be good) but I'll take your word for it.

> On page 6:

Thanks much.  :)

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Anders Arnholm]

>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
 > Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 11:25:11 PM, Jakob wrote:
 > > software. FHS states that /usr must be sharable over a network - e.g. if I
 > 
 > Thank you for finally providing a very good reason for a new top level
 > domain.  About the only thing missing, IMHO, is a specific cite from the FHS
 > (section number would be good) but I'll take your word for it.

On page 6:

The "shareable" distinction can be used to support, for example:

   o A /usr partition (or components of /usr) mounted (read-only)
 through the network (using NFS).

   o A /usr partition (or components of /usr) mounted from read-only
 media.  A CD-ROM can be considered a read-only filesystem shared
 with other FHS-compliant systems, using the postal mail system as a
 "network".


(As easy as zless /usr/doc/debian-policy/fhs/fhs.txt.gz, /\/usr, n)

/ Balp

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Lamb]

Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 12:29:30 PM, Anders wrote:
> Then can you tell me how your three steps are easyer and faster them our
> one step?

How are you going to get the data on to the drive without a minimum
installation on it in the first place?


-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Lamb]

Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 12:20:43 PM, Anders wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
>  > Nor is it the case with /opt.

> As long as you don't count the "Filesystem Hierarchy Standard".

Considering this thread was a criticism of the inclusion of it into that
standard, one cannot count that.  It would be like arguing the validity of the
Bible as a historical document of the life and times of Jesus H. Christ with
someone who is calling into question the validity of the Bible and then
saying, "Well, that's not true only if you don't count the Bible."

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Lamb]

I am doing this message wrong to prove a point.  First of, Johnny, my name
is Steve, not Steven.  Johann, I would appreciate it if you used it correctly.
Secondly, what you are doing is what I am doing here.  Reply first, and then
quoting.  If you had read the FAQ in its entirety you would have seen that the
qualification of "everything" is not important as "at the end."

So, here they are *again*, with highlighting so you get it.

"To send better messages, please trim and summarize what you're replying to,
and integrate your quoted text with the body of your message."


"Worst of all, you have done so by merely appending the complete message at
the bottom. Folks are used to reading the original material first, then the
^^^
follow-up. That's why it's called a "follow-up", you know. :-)"
^^

"If all you want to do is forward a copy of the message, that's one thing, but
here you seem to have just blindly pasted the complete old message at the end
   ^^
without providing any content. This is neither a proper public followup nor
^^^
even a decent private reply. Here's why."
^
  ^

"This isn't really an issue of space (I know that a few bytes here and there
mean less today than 20 years go), so much as it is of integrating your
   
comments with the old material for continuity."
^^

"The best way to do this is to interleave what you're quoting with your
 ^^
responses to that particular piece. That means that you should provide a

quoted portion, then address what the points therein, then another quoted
^
section, etc."
^

Finally, what you are doing does not provide context.  If you had read it,
and I hope you did this time, you would see that interleaving is what provides
context.  You are not interleaving at all.  You are replying at the top with
the quoted text at the bottom.

If you don't understand it, read it again.  Read it completely.  Don't
dismiss it.

Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 9:50:47 AM, Jonathan wrote:
> Good god.  Steven is even quoting Tom Christianson wrong.  Tom said not to
> stick the WHOLE message at the bottom, where it doesn't provide context.
> What I have been doing falls in the realm of "providing context".

> On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> Goody, I get to use this.  Thank Tom Christiansen for this one.  It was
>> written with Usenet in mind but most of these translate right over to mail.
>> Enjoy.
>> -- Tom Christiansens FAQ --
>> and integrate your quoted text with the body of your message. Don't just put
>> everything at the end.




-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Anders Arnholm]

>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
 > Now, *YOU* tell *ME* how that translates into reinstalling, configuring
 > and restoring all data.

Then can you tell me how your three steps are easyer and faster them our
one step? Restoring everything from one tape in one moment usally gets
done faster (as long as we ain't taking about a stupid client. Than
installing the system restoring the configuration, and then restoring
the data.

The best case of this should be an IBM rs server. IF you fouck up
things badly. You insert the backup tape, turn the key to servive, turns
on the power... waits... turns the key to normal mode and the server
should be up and running as soon as all data has been read back from the
tape. (Well actually it reboots once in the end.) Than is easy and
simple. In some other OS you have to instal the system, and the backup
software... that restore the rest, if you are not prepared for this
operation it could take time. Then maybe your approch could save time. A
preparde lazy administaort tries to get out of that situation before it
happens.

/ Balp

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Anders Arnholm]

>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
 > Nor is it the case with /opt.

As long as you don't count the "Filesystem Hierarchy Standard".

/ Balp

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Jonathan Walther]

Good god.  Steven is even quoting Tom Christianson wrong.  Tom said not to
stick the WHOLE message at the bottom, where it doesn't provide context.
What I have been doing falls in the realm of "providing context".

On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Goody, I get to use this.  Thank Tom Christiansen for this one.  It was
> written with Usenet in mind but most of these translate right over to mail.
> Enjoy.
> -- Tom Christiansens FAQ --
> and integrate your quoted text with the body of your message. Don't just put
> everything at the end.

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was:

[Anders Arnholm]

>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
 > Sure I can.  Now, *YOU* tell *ME* why you can't see the similarities
 > between /usr/local and /usr/opt in the above scenerio.  I mean, if /usr is

If it wan't for that the rest of the Unix univere in about 20 years ago
started to use the /opt mhiracy for this you should been right /opt and
/usr/op don't matter. But now we have to think about interopability and
shuch things too. /var I alsom think is a bad name, and i alson think
most of the stuff in /etc maybe should bet better named /cfg and then
maybe /host/cfg, /site/cfg that should have been a loot better names but
then everything shuold also have to change...

/ Balp

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Lamb]

Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 7:22:08 PM, Michael wrote:
> You have no point. You're making much ado about nothing.

I had a point, you just couldn't comprehend it, apparently.

> The reason is that we need a place for ISV's to put software.

This was never disputed by me.

> People have been using /opt for that purpose. There's no compelling argument
> against /opt, so why change it?

My point was that there wasn't any compelling reason *for* /opt either, so
why adopt it when the current structure, apparently, would work nicely.  IE,
conservatism, use what we got unless there is a good reason to use something
else.  Prevents bloat all around.

> We put a lot of stuff in /usr "just because" there's a tradition for it.

I doubt that.

> Regardless of how many arguments you trump up that /usr needs a new name
> (/foo, anyone?), you'd proably be ignored because the current system works
> fine. The same goes for /opt. "Just because" it pisses off Steve Lamb
> doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it.

This isn't the issue.  First off, there is a reason for /usr being called
/usr and why it is there.  It wasn't arbitrary, there were reasons.  /opt
appeared to be an arbitrary diversion from the established structure on a
"just because" basis because it could have fit into the current model.
However, someone *FINALLY* pointed out a very valid reason for having it on a
completely separate tree and they are right.

Funny, innit, there is a reason other than "just because" and if you,
Marek and who knows how many other people had either stated that up front or
said nothing on a subject you didn't have a good argument for a lot of this
could have been avoided.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Lamb]

Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 11:25:11 PM, Jakob wrote:
> software. FHS states that /usr must be sharable over a network - e.g. if I


> should not be an issue there, either. However, the license for application
> Foo may state that it may NOT be accessed over the network, and you only
> have a license to run it on computer Bar. If it is installed in /usr/local
> or /usr/opt, you are implicitly violating the license, since computer Baz
> has the same /usr tree as Bar. But, when opt is at /opt, it is not shared
> and such hassles can be avoided (of course, it can be even more easily
> avoided by staying away from non-free software, but then that would
> eliminate any need for /opt).

Thank you for finally providing a very good reason for a new top level
domain.  About the only thing missing, IMHO, is a specific cite from the FHS
(section number would be good) but I'll take your word for it.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Lamb]

Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 9:40:22 AM, Branden wrote:
> On the contrary, you seem to believe your opinion should carry at least
> equal weight to all the precedent and tradition that conflicts with it.

No, I have asked for and never got a valid *TECHNICAL* reason for it.  It
took well over a day for it.  Apparently people here, yourself included now,
are more interested in brow-beating people instead of offering real answers to
real questions.

> Your greatest talent seems to lie in wasting the time of people who are
> actually trying to make meaningful contributions to free software.
> Congratulations.

If they answered the questions posed instead of being pricks about it,
their time would not be wasted, would it?  No.

> That is why you get the chilly reception you do.

Incorrect, I get the chilly reception I do because I don't bow and scrape
to every half-assed answer presented to me and then slither into the corner
like a good little lemming.

> No one questions your right to set up/break your own machines however you
> please. But they will challenge your attempts to remold the world to fit
> your personal esthetic.

A personal esthetic, I might add, that was founded on technical reasoning
based on the facts at hand that was challenging other's assertations on those
grounds and receiving little more than a "because we feel like it" in
response.  I don't know about you, but "because we feel like it" doesn't cut
the mustard in a technical discussion.  I doubt that you'd accept it.

> If you really want to impact this issue, I suggest you attempt to join the
> FHS committee.  I wouldn't be surprised if they turn you down, though.  You
> seem to be more concerned with a kind of self-aggrandizing partisanship
> than with resolving real-world technical issues.

No, I don't want to impact the issue.  I wanted a technical reason for it
or nothing.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Lamb]

Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 7:36:37 AM, Marek wrote:
> For another time you show your ignorance.

Hardly.

> ftp is a user which CAN LOG into the system and which does log into the
> system.

For what purpose, pray tell?  Why would this daemon enjoy privileges
others do not?

> majordomo, msql, man etc. are all created just to make the server
> more secure. Are you capable of understanding that?

Much more than you, apparently.

> Your sarcasm is unnecessary, unprofessional, childish. Get real - you know
> squat about Unix. Learn. RTFM. Think. Then come back and talk with sense.
> Until then just be quiet and stop making fuss.

That is my advice to you.  I'm tired of your BS tactics of taking a
person's words and twisting them to their own purpose to cover your own weak
positions.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Lamb]

Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 6:25:12 AM, Marek wrote:
> * Steve Lamb said:

>> Considering one can install a fairly robust system (FreeBSD, Debian) over
>> FTP/NFS in under an hour and it takes 2-3 to go through a gig of data I would
>> much rather reinstall the programs and retrieve the relatively small data
>> (/etc, btw, is data).

> I can't believe what I'm reading. So you say, you are able to a) reinstal an
> OS, b) configure EVERYTHING as it was before, c) restore all the data within
> an hour? Bravo. You're the best. I wish I was the same.

No.  You can't read, can you.  *sigh*  I really *HATE* people like you.
Loath is more like it.

"Consider one can install a fairly robust system (FreeBSD, Debian) over
FTP/NFS..."

Now, *YOU* tell *ME* how that translates into reinstalling, configuring
and restoring all data.

Here's a clue for you.  IT DOESN'T.  I only mentioned installing the OS.

Step 2 would be to restore configs from backup as it is easier to just
backup /etc and not everything to go with it.  Step 3 is restoring the data.
I only covered step 1 as compared to doing the *SAME THING* from tape.

Do *NOT* put words into my mouth.  *READ* what was written and not what
you *THINK* was written.  Get a clue.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Lamb]

Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 6:03:47 AM, Marek wrote:
> * Steve Lamb said:
>> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 3:53:40 PM, Raul wrote:
>> > Actually, the biggest problem with Windows is that it's not a standard.
>> 
>> But it is.
> Oh? Show me an RFC or anything of the kind that makes WIndows standard? The
> fact that it is installed on almost every OEM equipment doesn't make it a
> STANDARD. Standard is everybody else in the industry follows or implements.
> It is not the case with Windows.

Nor is it the case with /opt.
 
>> > DOS was, and the MS Office is to some degree, but Windows hasn't been
>> > very standard.
> That's right. WIndows is actually in a permament state of flux. How can it
> make a standard this way?

Watch the attributions, I did not say that.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Lamb]

Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 5:49:09 AM, Marek wrote:
> Huh? /opt IS a standard, and yet you opt (sic!) against it? So what IS your
> point anyway?

Well, if you would *READ* you'd get it.  Instead you just want to argue.

>> Windows is the standard in business computing.  So let's all jump on the
>> standard, who's with me?
> That's irrelevant. Chose better example. 

Why?  Just because that example works and proves my point that standards
for standards sake aren't above scrutiny all of a sudden it isn't a valid
example?

>> Well, so much for standards *just* for standards sake.  Standards need a
>> decent reason and I don't feel a new top level directory "just because" is a
>> good enough reason.
> New? Is 20 years *new* in your book?

According to some quoted material it is < 10 years, not 20.  Yeh, that's
new compared to /usr, /etc, /dev, /home.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Lamb]

Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 5:45:24 AM, Marek wrote:
> * Steve Lamb said:
>> Again, please do not reply above.  It is rude.
> No, it might be inconvenient for YOU, but it's not rude. You are rude, all
> the time.

Goody, I get to use this.  Thank Tom Christiansen for this one.  It was
written with Usenet in mind but most of these translate right over to mail.
Enjoy.

-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

To send better messages, please trim and summarize what you're replying to,
and integrate your quoted text with the body of your message. Don't just put
everything at the end. This isn't Jeopardy. People expect question-and-answer,
not answer-and-question responses.
 
LONG STORY:
 
Wouldn't you like to make your messages easier for others to read and
understand? If so, I have some news posting tips for you. If not, just ignore
this. (Of course, if you don't want your messages easier to read and
understand, it's not clear why to bother to send them in the first place. :-)
I'm going to take a bit of time to explain this, because newcomers to Usenet
often lack the cultural background were I to send a superbrief message.
 
Here's the issue: you appear to have quoted the entire message to which you
were replying. Worst of all, you have done so by merely appending the complete
message at the bottom. Folks are used to reading the original material first,
then the follow-up. That's why it's called a "follow-up", you know. :-)
 
If all you want to do is forward a copy of the message, that's one thing, but
here you seem to have just blindly pasted the complete old message at the end
without providing any content. This is neither a proper public followup nor
even a decent private reply. Here's why.
 
First of all, this is massive overkill -- you're supposed to trim your quoted
text to only what you're replying to. Otherwise you'll probably violate the
netiquette target quoting percentage of 50%. See below. This isn't really an
issue of space (I know that a few bytes here and there mean less today than 20
years go), so much as it is of integrating your comments with the old material
for continuity.
 
Second, putting everything at the bottom does little good. It doesn't provide
the proper context. It's far too late. When you reply to someone's content,
the reason you quote the previous message is so that you can provide some
degree of contextual continuity. The best way to do this is to interleave what
you're quoting with your responses to that particular piece. That means that
you should provide a quoted portion, then address what the points therein,
then another quoted section, etc.
 
For example, here's how followup replies *should* look if you'd
like them to be more effective.
 
> Joe said we should eat noodles.
 
But I don't like noodles.  They are a pain to prepare -- remember that what 
started this thread was how to cook using only a microwave, not real 
cooking -- and they provide you with very little sustenance in the long 
run.  It's like eating cardboard, nutritionally speaking.
 
> He also suggests adding anchovies.
 
What is this fish fetish? Not all of us like the little minnows with the
lingering briny taste swimming around our mouths for the next few hours or
days. Can you imagine this on a date? Ich!
 
Notice how in the text above, alternate quoted passages are interleaved with
new response text. Notice also that the new text far exceeds the old text.
This is the way it should be.
 
If you are receiving this message in response to a news posting, please
understand that all modern newsreaders provide a mechanism to fetch the parent
article, so it is seldom necessary to quote the whole thing. Sometimes even
mail readers provide this, depending on the mail headers and the list archival
mechanism on your own system.
 
Here's a section from the essential netiquette guide, "A Primer on How to Work
With the Usenet Community", which is available in news.announce.newusers.
Perhaps your service provider neglected to point you at this newsgroup before
you got swallowed up by all of Usenet. It's not only a good read; it's
critical to understanding the culture you're now moving in.
 
Summarize What You are Following Up.
 
When you are following up someone's article, please summarize the parts of the
article to which you are responding. This allows readers to appreciate your
comments rather than trying to remember what the original article said. It is
also possible for your response to get to some sites before the original
article.
 
Summarization is best done by including appropriate quotes from the original
article. Do not include the entire article since it will irritate the people
who have already seen it. Even if you are responding to the entire article,
summarize only the major points you are discussing.
 
It's even more annoying when people needlessly quote the original's automatic
trailing matter, like signatures, adverts, or disclaimers. Please don't do
that.
 
I'm hones

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was:

[Steve Lamb]

Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 4:15:52 AM, Marek wrote:
> As usually, you weren't listening. Somebody in this thread has said why it
> is good to use /opt for third-party (usually commercial) packages:

I am listening.  Others aren't thinking.  Let me use your example as an
example.


> /usr - controlled by Debian
> /usr/local - controlled by *me* - a local admin
> /opt - controlled by *them* - the commercial vendors

> Can't you really see the difference between *local* packages and those you
> cannot control (the commercial ones)?

Sure I can.  Now, *YOU* tell *ME* why you can't see the similarities
between /usr/local and /usr/opt in the above scenerio.  I mean, if /usr is
controlled by Debian then /usr/local, being a branch of /usr, would *ALSO* be
controlled by Debian.  Oh, that isn't the case.  So why then could /usr/opt
also fall under that same "no touch" rule that /usr/local enjoys?

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 06:57:24AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:12:44PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > No, I knew what the rationale was and I don't agree with it one bit.  
> > > In
> > > short, their rationale is wrong and we're repeating the mistake.
>  
> > Well, I'm glad we have you around to give us the unambiguous,
> > unquestionable Word of God on the subject.
> 
> Pardon me for not considering "Well, that's where they put it" a valid
> reason in and of itself when there are better places for it.  At least I've
> explained my reasonings which is better than your flamebait here does.

On the contrary, you seem to believe your opinion should carry at least
equal weight to all the precedent and tradition that conflicts with it.

I don't think anyone has asserted that the name and placement of /opt is
not arbitrary in large measure.  It does not follow that your equally
arbitrary assertion is of equal worth, because real-world deployment issues
are added to the mix.  It is arbitrary that (most) western languages are
horizontally aligned and meant to be read left-to-right.  It does not
follow that some individual's proposal to alter the orientation of these
languages is a desirable thing to do, *even if* there is no difference in
instrinsic utility one way or the other.

If the question is to /opt or not to /opt, then for interoperability and
compatibility our judging criteria boil down to a combination of democracy
(all the people who already use it) and meritocracy (the drafting of a
filesystem hierarchy standard by people who are generally accepted to be
competent to develop one).

You are a voice of one, and count little by democratic measure.

You also haven't contributed meaningfully to free software, as far as I can
tell, so you lose out on the meritocratic basis as well.  Your greatest
talent seems to lie in wasting the time of people who are actually trying
to make meaningful contributions to free software.  Congratulations.

That is why you get the chilly reception you do.  No one questions your
right to set up/break your own machines however you please.  But they will
challenge your attempts to remold the world to fit your personal esthetic.

If you really want to impact this issue, I suggest you attempt to join the
FHS committee.  I wouldn't be surprised if they turn you down, though.  You
seem to be more concerned with a kind of self-aggrandizing partisanship
than with resolving real-world technical issues.

Have a nice day.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson  |
Debian GNU/Linux |  Music is the brandy of the damned.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  -- George Bernard Shaw
cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |


pgpdMOP3VFBlM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Marek Habersack]

* Steve Lamb said:

> > > >> None of this describes one bit why it has to be a top level
> > > >> directory.
> > > > Because it fits the Unix tradition of lazy typists. Im a lazy typist.
> > > > Hear my carpal tunnel fingers cry out as they type the extra 4
> > > > characters in /usr/opt
>  
> > > Then why /home/ftp instead of /ftp?  Why /var/htdocs instead of /www?
> > Because ftp is a USER and user's home belongs in /home. /var/www (NOT
> > /var/htdocs, btw) because the home page is varying data, not a static one.
> > Makes sense to you? Probably not, but it does for me.
> 
> Oh, I get it now.  So if it is a *user* then we clearly place it in home.
> 
> So...  Where's /home/qmail?  /home/games anyone?  /home/news?  /home/uucp?
> Wait, wait, according to you, all the man pages clearly belong in /usr/man!
> Oh, rats, what happened to /home/www-data? /home/majordomo?  /home/msql?
> /home/irc?  /home/gnats?  /home/root?  /home/mail!  /home/list!
> Wow, Marek, Debian sure placed all of those USER's home in /home.  I'm so glad
> you cleared that up.  
For another time you show your ignorance. ftp is a user which CAN LOG into
the system and which does log into the system. majordomo, msql, man etc. are
all created just to make the server more secure. Are you capable of
understanding that? All users that can log into the system from outside are
put in /home and below. /root is on the / partition because it must be able
to log in if nothing but / mounts. Usually /home is on a different file
system. Your sarcasm is unnecessary, unprofessional, childish. Get real -
you know squat about Unix. Learn. RTFM. Think. Then come back and talk with
sense. Until then just be quiet and stop making fuss.
 
> What does varying data have to do with anything about the placement of
> top-level directories based on a whim?  I mean, already /var/www is wrong
> because it is a *USER* and should be placed in /home with the other varying
> data, like /home/ftp is.
No. www is not a user. And even if it was, then it doesn't log into the
system. There's a www-data user because there's no reason to run the httpd
with root privs. 

marek

pgphvqzVLkzqw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Marek Habersack]

* Sven LUTHER said:

> > > > How do you know I don't do just that, via symlinks?  I bet you'd never 
> > > > have
> > > > guessed I have /usr/src/linux symlinked to /sys
> > > 
> > > OK, now argue it as a standard for everyone as /opt is.
> > /opt is a de-facto standard. By usage. By tradition. By habit. By convence.
> 
> If i remember well, /opt is a Systeme 5 stuff, will /usr/local is a BSD stuff,
> taken over by most linux distribs these days. on my sun, i have a /opt but no
> /usr/local for example.
Correct. Linux distros are generally a mixture of SystemV and BSD standards
- see the bootup init methods, for one. /opt is a good thing from the SV
world, /usr/local is a good thing from BSD. Why not to use both?

marek


pgp9beHLROpYa.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Lamb]

On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> * Steve Lamb said:
> > Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 2:39:46 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> > >> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 3:14:37 PM, Federico wrote:
> > >> > IMHO, /usr is what we (Debian) control, /usr/local is what I (the
> > >> > sysadmin) control, /opt is where third-party package builders (e.g.,
> > >> > Corel, KDE, Cygnus, etc...) control.
> > >> None of this describes one bit why it has to be a top level
> > >> directory.
> > > Because it fits the Unix tradition of lazy typists. Im a lazy typist.
> > > Hear my carpal tunnel fingers cry out as they type the extra 4
> > > characters in /usr/opt
 
> > Then why /home/ftp instead of /ftp?  Why /var/htdocs instead of /www?
> Because ftp is a USER and user's home belongs in /home. /var/www (NOT
> /var/htdocs, btw) because the home page is varying data, not a static one.
> Makes sense to you? Probably not, but it does for me.

Oh, I get it now.  So if it is a *user* then we clearly place it in home.

So...  Where's /home/qmail?  /home/games anyone?  /home/news?  /home/uucp?
Wait, wait, according to you, all the man pages clearly belong in /usr/man!
Oh, rats, what happened to /home/www-data? /home/majordomo?  /home/msql?
/home/irc?  /home/gnats?  /home/root?  /home/mail!  /home/list!
Wow, Marek, Debian sure placed all of those USER's home in /home.  I'm so glad
you cleared that up.  

What does varying data have to do with anything about the placement of
top-level directories based on a whim?  I mean, already /var/www is wrong
because it is a *USER* and should be placed in /home with the other varying
data, like /home/ftp is.


-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Steve Lamb]

On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:12:44PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > No, I knew what the rationale was and I don't agree with it one bit.  In
> > short, their rationale is wrong and we're repeating the mistake.
 
> Well, I'm glad we have you around to give us the unambiguous,
> unquestionable Word of God on the subject.

Pardon me for not considering "Well, that's where they put it" a valid
reason in and of itself when there are better places for it.  At least I've
explained my reasonings which is better than your flamebait here does.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Marek Habersack]

* Steve Lamb said:

> Considering one can install a fairly robust system (FreeBSD, Debian) over
> FTP/NFS in under an hour and it takes 2-3 to go through a gig of data I would
> much rather reinstall the programs and retrieve the relatively small data
> (/etc, btw, is data).
I can't believe what I'm reading. So you say, you are able to a) reinstal an
OS, b) configure EVERYTHING as it was before, c) restore all the data within
an hour? Bravo. You're the best. I wish I was the same.

marek

pgpg6yexlj2Ll.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Marek Habersack]

* Steve Lamb said:
> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 3:53:40 PM, Raul wrote:
> > Actually, the biggest problem with Windows is that it's not a standard.
> 
> But it is.
Oh? Show me an RFC or anything of the kind that makes WIndows standard? The
fact that it is installed on almost every OEM equipment doesn't make it a
STANDARD. Standard is everybody else in the industry follows or implements.
It is not the case with Windows.
 
> > DOS was, and the MS Office is to some degree, but Windows hasn't been
> > very standard.
That's right. WIndows is actually in a permament state of flux. How can it
make a standard this way?
 
marek


pgpZ9kc5Q80dH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Sven LUTHER]

On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 02:45:24PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> * Steve Lamb said:
> > Again, please do not reply above.  It is rude.
> No, it might be inconvenient for YOU, but it's not rude. You are rude, all
> the time.
> 
> > Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 3:34:05 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> > > On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > >> Then why /home/ftp instead of /ftp?  Why /var/htdocs instead of /www?
> > > How do you know I don't do just that, via symlinks?  I bet you'd never 
> > > have
> > > guessed I have /usr/src/linux symlinked to /sys
> > 
> > OK, now argue it as a standard for everyone as /opt is.
> /opt is a de-facto standard. By usage. By tradition. By habit. By convence.

If i remember well, /opt is a Systeme 5 stuff, will /usr/local is a BSD stuff,
taken over by most linux distribs these days. on my sun, i have a /opt but no
/usr/local for example.

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Marek Habersack]

* Steve Lamb said:

> > On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 01:49:41PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> >> So why /opt and not /usr/opt with the possibility of /usr/local/opt?
> 
> > Because unlike opt and local, there really isn't a difference between
> > /opt and /usr/opt -- except that one's a standard. Why not replace /home
> > with /users or make clocks run counterclockwise or redefine the meter?
> > Same reason -- we need a standard, arbitrary or not.
> 
> That is my point!
Huh? /opt IS a standard, and yet you opt (sic!) against it? So what IS your
point anyway?
 
> Windows is the standard in business computing.  So let's all jump on the
> standard, who's with me?
That's irrelevant. Chose better example. 

> Well, so much for standards *just* for standards sake.  Standards need a
> decent reason and I don't feel a new top level directory "just because" is a
> good enough reason.
New? Is 20 years *new* in your book?

marek


pgpK96g1UQrMn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Marek Habersack]

* Steve Lamb said:
> Again, please do not reply above.  It is rude.
No, it might be inconvenient for YOU, but it's not rude. You are rude, all
the time.

> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 3:34:05 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Steve Lamb wrote:
> >> Then why /home/ftp instead of /ftp?  Why /var/htdocs instead of /www?
> > How do you know I don't do just that, via symlinks?  I bet you'd never have
> > guessed I have /usr/src/linux symlinked to /sys
> 
> OK, now argue it as a standard for everyone as /opt is.
/opt is a de-facto standard. By usage. By tradition. By habit. By convence.

marek

pgp0Rrnd7LyF3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Marek Habersack]

* Steve Lamb said:
> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 2:39:46 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> >> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 3:14:37 PM, Federico wrote:
> >> > IMHO, /usr is what we (Debian) control, /usr/local is what I (the
> >> > sysadmin) control, /opt is where third-party package builders (e.g.,
> >> > Corel, KDE, Cygnus, etc...) control.
> >> None of this describes one bit why it has to be a top level directory.
> > Because it fits the Unix tradition of lazy typists. Im a lazy typist.  Hear
> > my carpal tunnel fingers cry out as they type the extra 4 characters in
> > /usr/opt
> 
> Then why /home/ftp instead of /ftp?  Why /var/htdocs instead of /www?
Because ftp is a USER and user's home belongs in /home. /var/www (NOT
/var/htdocs, btw) because the home page is varying data, not a static one.
Makes sense to you? Probably not, but it does for me.

marek


pgp1YayPHqGtk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Marek Habersack]

* Branden Robinson said:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 05:59:33PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 5:40:28 PM, Raul wrote:
> > > As it happens, I already pointed you at the answer to that question,
> > > you were just too lazy to take the hint.  So [me being a fool], here's
> > > a quote (the rationale) from http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.0/fhs-3.8.html:
> > 
> > No, I knew what the rationale was and I don't agree with it one bit.  In
> > short, their rationale is wrong and we're repeating the mistake.
> 
> Well, I'm glad we have you around to give us the unambiguous,
> unquestionable Word of God on the subject.
Steve has become annoyingly authoritative not only on this subject, but on
several other ones. It seems that a group of professionals who created FHS
and other standards was not very smart, while Steve is. Well, anyway I think
we'd better follow the fools, than Steve (although HE knows better). As said
before, /opt is a part of VERY reputable standards, a well established one
and undisputably useful one. I've seen several commercial packages which
rely upon the existence of /opt - therefore I see no reason NOT to provide
the directory. But Steve knows better. I guess it's just the way he tries to
get noticed by people. Oh well...

marek


pgpIpTgtkk6pr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was:

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 12:23:24PM +0200, Anders Arnholm wrote:
> >>>Anthony Towns wrote:
>  > > beacus some pepole in the Debian comunity does not have tha same
>  > > problems...
>  >  STOP WRITING TO -devel AND START **DOING** SOMETHING ABOUT IT *
> The day I get my key sigh by a developer and I get som exctra time. I
> can contribitute something.

Nonsense. There are a million ways you can contribute to Debian without
being a developer [0]. The only extra ones that developers can do
are uploading packages. Actually achieving any of these goals isn't a
matter of having an acocunt on master, it's a matter of getting good
code written, and ensuring that it works. Actually getting it into Debian,
while painful and difficult isn't really the sticking point.

>  > There's plenty of stuff to be done, and sitting around talking each
>  > others face off is non-productive at best.
> Withoput talking about the peroblems one never finds out what the
> differents sides of the problem. One has too use the brain before one
> start to work.

And *gee* you'll never guess what, but the people that *have* started
work have already thought about it, discussed it on this and other
lists, and resolved most of the issues. Look up their work, their past
discussions and only come back if you've got something *new* to add,
not just some brand new "Death of Debian predicted, .gif at 11" hyperbole.

Feh.

Cheers,
aj

[0] Here's five:

* Join boot-floppies and start coordinating all the patches and
  additions to CVS and start building actual .debs and finding
  what problems are still lurking and start fixing them.

* Write / find manpages to replace the undocumented.7 links, and
  send them to the maintainer.

* Go through old/release-critical/interesting/whatever bug reports,
  add patches where you can work out the solution, or poke the
  maintainer to apply patches that are already there, or to close
  bugs that are already fixed.

* Join the X strike force, start testing and fixing the IPv6
  .debs, join *any* of the special interest groups and start
  solving problems, and sending people patches.

* Work on some of the semi-external projects: debconf, debbugs,
  Herring, etc. Hell, work on some upstream projects, even.

You'll notice "redesign Debian and convince everyone that it'd all
be much better that way" doesn't rate. Nor does "try and force everyone
else to do work, coz they're all slackers, and it's not fair how they
have accounts at debian.org and you don't".

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds


pgpkoNuRY4grz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was:

[Marek Habersack]

* Steve Lamb said:

> > Why is placing third-party bianary packages in /opt a bad thing?
> 
> Because /opt is a duplication of an existing file structure which can
> serve the purpose more than adequately.  What people are asking me is "what is
> wrong with /opt" when I am pointing out is that there is nothing wrong with
> /usr/local, or /usr/opt with a /usr/local/opt counterpart.  I do not see the
> need of a whole new top-level directory.
As usually, you weren't listening. Somebody in this thread has said why it
is good to use /opt for third-party (usually commercial) packages:

/usr - controlled by Debian
/usr/local - controlled by *me* - a local admin
/opt - controlled by *them* - the commercial vendors

Can't you really see the difference between *local* packages and those you
cannot control (the commercial ones)? If a commercial package was compiled
with /opt in mind (it was a case with older SO, AFAIR) and you don't have
access to sources nor any way to reconfigure it to use a different tree,
then you HAVE to put it in /opt. And doing the symlink messing is pointless.

marek


pgpCkjYhubdgA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was:

[Anders Arnholm]

>>>Anthony Towns wrote:
 > 
 > > beacus some pepole in the Debian comunity does not have tha same
 > > problems...
 >  STOP WRITING TO -devel AND START **DOING** SOMETHING ABOUT IT *

The day I get my key sigh by a developer and I get som exctra time. I
can contribitute something. BUT STILL NOT IN THIS PROBLEM more that
argue and give you may option in the case, our do you think I shuold
then change all packets to work in a different way, installing thing s
that does not fin in the minimal base system outside of /usr? If I get
to that state shuld I make a new Distribution too? This is not a problem
that gets solved by one person.

 > There's plenty of stuff to be done, and sitting around talking each
 > others face off is non-productive at best.

Withoput talking about the peroblems one never finds out what the
differents sides of the problem. One has too use the brain before one
start to work.

/ Balp

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Anders Arnholm]

>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
 > Considering one can install a fairly robust system (FreeBSD, Debian) over
 > FTP/NFS in under an hour and it takes 2-3 to go through a gig of data I would
 > much rather reinstall the programs and retrieve the relatively small data
 > (/etc, btw, is data).

As long at the installation could be made easy, if it's on an importande
machine that are cunstom installed I'm sure the installation (just
ansering all questions) would take a loot longer. (At least you HAVE to
remenber exactly what packages you had installed. (I don't)

The bast backup is that one that never get used. If you can affordit
backups are on harddrives, (using raid) and on an extra host. That you
also have a tape (in a diferent pysical location).

/ Balp

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Anders Arnholm]

>>>Steve Lamb wrote:

 > Then why /home/ftp instead of /ftp?

Because ~ftp is as short as /ftp.

 > Why /var/htdocs instead of /www?

Bacouase /var/htdocs is an error, the i.m.h.o. propper location is
/home/www, a.k.a. ~www

/ Balp

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was:

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 10:21:57AM +0200, Anders Arnholm wrote:
>  > If you like FreeBSD...  *USE FREEBSD*.
> You mean that if he likes the installation and flexibility of FreeBSD
> usit, ignore rthat Debian does have someother things that are better
> beacus some pepole in the Debian comunity does not have tha same
> problems...

Oh for god's sake.

If you really care about any of this, then

 STOP WRITING TO -devel AND START **DOING** SOMETHING ABOUT IT *

There are already projects *well* underway to get the same results,
that could use some help (coding, documentation, testing). They /don't/
need continually argument on -devel about what's the One True Way of doing
it.

If you don't like any of them and are convinced your way is better then
start your own project. Whatever. BUT JUST _DO_ IT.

For configuration management and mass installs, see dconfig.deb (in potato)
and email the maintainer; or see debconf (URLs have been posted previously)
and contact the config mailing list.

For improving the release structure, see my previous message on this
list under the subject `Re: speeding up the release cycle (was Re:
Debian's problems)' for some things you can do _right now_ to help that
along.

There's plenty of stuff to be done, and sitting around talking each
others face off is non-productive at best.

Herd of cats? Bunch of badly housetrained puppy dogs more like it. Feh.

ObWhatHaveIHelpedWithLately: debbugs and debconf

Cheers,
aj, who thinks that rather than stopping uploads to unstable while there are
RC bugs, we might like to try stopping posts to -devel.

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds


pgpjXwag1XnjP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Anders Arnholm]

>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
 > Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 3:14:37 PM, Federico wrote:
 > > sysadmin) control, /opt is where third-party package builders (e.g.,
 > > Corel, KDE, Cygnus, etc...) control.
 > None of this describes one bit why it has to be a top level directory.

You may not like it, but not everyone are running around distributiona
all of there software as open software, wouldning it be nice if you that
could download this software in one version for everly Linux
distribution and install. Without ugly wrapper packets?

/ Balp

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was:

[Anders Arnholm]

>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
 > Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 12:32:19 PM, Jonathan wrote:
 > > I hate being FORCED to do an "install" when a "copy" is just as good and
 > > saves far more effort.  I duplicate hundreds of FreeBSD disks every month.
 > > If only Linux was so easy.
 > 
 > If you like FreeBSD...  *USE FREEBSD*.

You mean that if he likes the installation and flexibility of FreeBSD
usit, ignore rthat Debian does have someother things that are better
beacus some pepole in the Debian comunity does not have tha same
problems...

/ Balp

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

[Anders Arnholm]

>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
 > Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 1:45:46 PM, Marek wrote:
 > >> Which would be for what reason?
 > > When for example it is mounted on a cdrom as a live CD system. Enough?
 > 
 > /usr/local, where you're going to keep local, custom builds of things, i

That are hopefully located on the "BIG, SECURE", server and that one
does not allow UNTRUSTED clients to write on the share! That way one
does not have to run arround and install every little local twist on
every mashine.

 > But to answer your statement directly...  You start being reasonable and
 > I'll stop refuting your foolish positions.  Deal?

I.m.h.o. you without truing to see the problems aloot of the othar
admins run into, tells that your (the old way) is better. At the moment
(sadly) Debian is one of the least well suited distributions for large
scale use. There are simply to much work on to many location to fit
anything but small installations. Automated scriptable atp-get upgarde,
is one step, distriburder packedges are one other) Both are a help in
the large scale work.

/ Balp

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was:

[Anders Arnholm]

>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
 > domain of individuals who do not have a packaging system.  Debian has a very
 > strong packaging system so the separation is not needed.

Then could you please show me a way to share /usr/bin over nfs? I see
the need to install, the idea in /usr/share is that it should be
possible to share it beween several hosts (saving some disk space)
that's just not possible eighter with the current "strong" packaging
system.

 > >> If we wanted to do things the FreeBSD way, we'd use FreeBSD.
 > > That doesn't stop Debian from using FreeBSD as inspiration.
 > No, but it should always be remembered before people get overzealous and
 > forget what makes Debian Debian.

Is a unflexible /usr/bin with over 1500 binaried one of the things that
makes Debian debian, I peronally think more of it as the development
process, the tools dpkg, apt, and not as /usr/bin /usr/bin or
/usr/extra/bin is not a that big difference. It will not change whats
debian in it. There are now a distinktion  between packeges (local,
Required, Important, Standard, Optional and Extra) at leas in my packet
kind of view on Debian. More flexability could be good if it was used in
a sencible maner.

/ Balp