On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 15:42 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > 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?).
I don't want to go on record contradicting the Tech Board here, but "extras" seems to me to fit the bill. I don't think users will be exposed to it much, but "extras" seems to imply the kind of "add on" behavior that we are going for. Would it be possible to reconsider "/opt/extras/"? If not, maybe "/opt/addons-ubuntu" to pick up on Scott's idea? Cheers, Rick -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
