Joel Estes wrote:
> Bart Smaalders wrote:
You're not forced to use them for your own software;
put your libraries in /usr/local/lib or /opt/xxx and link
with that.
- Bart
I normaly do exactly that. But that still leaves the user with 481 MB of bloat
in /usr/sfw , most of which is not r
Darren J Moffat writes:
> Dennis Clarke wrote:>
> > Once something is in the "wos" then thats is it. It is part of the
> > operating system. The concept of "core" operating system is a matter
> > for discussion but the "wos" is the whole thing right ?
>
> Yeah I guess "core" is a problematic ter
Dennis Clarke wrote:>
Once something is in the "wos" then thats is it. It is part of the
operating system. The concept of "core" operating system is a matter
for discussion but the "wos" is the whole thing right ?
Yeah I guess "core" is a problematic term here. What about "part of
the operat
Joerg Schilling writes:
> James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Alan Coopersmith writes:
> > > Solaris filesystem locations have also traditionally conformed to the
> > > SVID standard (originally from AT&T to define what SVR4 was), but I
> > > don't know if we've kept up to date on that.
On 3/21/06, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > (1) Is there a UNIX standard ? ( this is just yes or no )
>
> no, because there are no UNIX standards. There are X/Open standards
> and IETF standards and SVR4 ABI requirements etc etc etc.
Sort of a questi
On 3/21/06, Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > Was there a document at some point in history ( this is UNIX and it
> > has tons of history ) called the FSSTD or was it FHS ?
> >
> > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html
> > ( this may be a Linux an
James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith writes:
> > Solaris filesystem locations have also traditionally conformed to the
> > SVID standard (originally from AT&T to define what SVR4 was), but I
> > don't know if we've kept up to date on that.
>
> "man -s 5 standards" gives some
Alan Coopersmith writes:
> Solaris filesystem locations have also traditionally conformed to the
> SVID standard (originally from AT&T to define what SVR4 was), but I
> don't know if we've kept up to date on that.
"man -s 5 standards" gives some background information on this.
--
James Carlson,
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Was there a document at some point in history ( this is UNIX and it
has tons of history ) called the FSSTD or was it FHS ?
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html
( this may be a Linux animal however )
That's the Linux Standards Base filesystem layout, and sho
Dennis Clarke wrote:
(1) Is there a UNIX standard ? ( this is just yes or no )
no, because there are no UNIX standards. There are X/Open standards
and IETF standards and SVR4 ABI requirements etc etc etc.
(2) What is the UNIX standard?
(3) Do we respect that standard ? ( Is
On 3/21/06, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Tribble wrote:
> > Well, it's not *just* OpenSSL, but that was the main topic in the
< snippage >
> Which is why it is External and why it is currently in /usr/sfw.
>
Sorry for wading in at this late point but I have been reading and
r
Peter Tribble wrote:
Well, it's not *just* OpenSSL, but that was the main topic in the
thread.
Actually, my experience is that openssl is incredibly fragile.
If I build 0.9.7 myself and use my version then I have very few
problems, but building against the /usr/sfw version gave me a
lot of grief
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 14:10, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Peter Tribble wrote:
> > That's not at all reasonable. I certainly don't want applications
> > or libraries that I may need to install my own versions of in
> > the standard system locations. Doing so only makes the possibility
> > of conflict m
J. Estes writes:
> I normaly do exactly that. But that still leaves the user with 481
> MB of bloat in /usr/sfw , most of which is not required by the core
> O/S. This does not include the enormous bloat of Gnome, either. If
> OpenSSL is a requirement, the suggestion was made to move it to
> /u
Peter Tribble wrote:
That's not at all reasonable. I certainly don't want applications
or libraries that I may need to install my own versions of in
the standard system locations. Doing so only makes the possibility
of conflict more likely. Shoving things like openssl away in
/usr/sfw is nice and
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 05:21, J. Estes wrote:
> > You're not forced to use them for your own software;
> > put your libraries in /usr/local/lib or /opt/xxx and link
> > with that.
> >
> > - Bart
>
> I normaly do exactly that. But that still leaves the user with
> 481 MB of bloat in /usr/sfw , mo
J. Estes wrote:
You're not forced to use them for your own software;
put your libraries in /usr/local/lib or /opt/xxx and link
with that.
- Bart
I normaly do exactly that. But that still leaves the user with 481 MB of bloat
in /usr/sfw , most of which is not required by the core O/S.
> You're not forced to use them for your own software;
> put your libraries in /usr/local/lib or /opt/xxx and link
> with that.
>
> - Bart
I normaly do exactly that. But that still leaves the user with 481 MB of bloat
in /usr/sfw , most of which is not required by the core O/S. This does not
18 matches
Mail list logo
