On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 03:21:46 pm Allison Randal wrote: > On 11/16/2010 12:08 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > IIRC, FHS expects /opt/<vendor>/<package>. Perhaps Canonical should > > register "canonical" if they haven't already and then allocate > > /opt/canonical/quickly or /opt/canonical/arb namespace to this. Given > > the way FHS anticipated /opt to be used, I think Canonical (although > > certainly not ideal) may be the best choice. > > /opt/canonical has a similar problem to /opt/ubuntu, in implying > "officialness" or support from someone (in this case Canonical as a > company, rather than Ubuntu as a community/project/distro). > > But, there seems to be a fundamental tension here between "official > enough to register with LANANA" and "not too official", so perhaps an > added level in the path is the best solution, like /opt/ubuntu/extras. > It is specified in the FHS "The structure of the directories below > /opt/<provider> is left up to the packager of the software..." with > /opt/<provider>/<packagename> as a suggestion, not a requirement. > > Allison
I can see that. I'd strongly prefer it not be something that is exactly Ubuntu. Even something like ubuntu-arb or ubuntu-appdevel would be much better (apps-on-ubuntu?). Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
