[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Programs that depend on X libraries
From:       Mikael Hallendal <hallski () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2001-08-30 16:42:01
[Download RAW message or body]

tor 2001-08-30 klockan 21.31 skrev Aron Griffis:
> Jerry A! wrote:	[Thu Aug 30 2001, 04:25:12PM EDT]
> > : To digress a bit, I think that /usr/pkg would make sense for a set of
> > : packages that are maintained via a method separate from the base
> > : distribution.  For example, if Ximian were to offer a set of rpms to
> > : install on Gentoo, they might install into /usr/pkg so as to prevent
> > 
> > However, this breaks common logic and standard practice.  I believe that
> > according to the FHS this would still go somewhere under /opt.  One can
> > hope that the Ximian folks would do the right thing and install it under
> > /opt/ximian instead of /opt/gnome.
> 
> Agreed.  My example was a poor attempt to present a case where /usr/pkg
> might be justified on Gentoo.

Hi!

This was not a suggestion, more to throw in another aspect. This is
truly not the "Linux"-way of doing it and I think the discussions about
that our basesystem is installed in the same way as everything else (ie.
through portage and not by unpacking the system-tarball). So this ruled
out...

I'm going to drop the /usr/X11R6-discussion as we all (at least from
what I understood it agreed everything not X itself being moved into
/usr).

> > : Consistency with other major distributions carries more weight in my
> > : mind, primarily because I think it would be a shame if we fail to learn
> > : from their experience.

I more see it that's what we are doing here :) hence the split in
/opt/gnome, /opt/kde ... :)

> That's not my point.  I don't mind diverging from Red Hat's methods.
> But Red Hat also approached this question once and decided to install in
> /usr.  It would be foolish of us to assume that they put no thought into
> the matter.

They have probably given this more thought. But I think the problem is
bigger on RPM-based system. The RPM (or generally, a binary-based
packagesystem) is going to have third party packages created by all
kinds of people/companies/groups. It's much more convinient to just put
everything in /usr.

I really like the idea of having GNOME in /opt/gnome and KDE in
/opt/KDE. I really don't like /usr/bin contain thousands of binaries. I
don't however don't really like the idea of packages being put in
different places depending on which USE-flags was used when building the
package.

> > However, GNOME and KDE are meant to be looked at as coherent
> > environments that give the user the ability to install multiple
> > components.  For that reason alone, they do belong in /opt.  It's no
> > different than choosing not to install all of Mozilla's or
> > StarOffice's components.
> 
> It's quite different.  Mozilla and StarOffice are distributed as
> single coherent programs, consisting of multiple modules.  Neither of
> these programs split naturally; they are both designed to be run from
> their own hierarchy (hence MOZILLA_FIVE_HOME).

Not sure about KDE but GNOME has the GNOME_PATH env. variable for
specifying where GNOME is installed.

> Gnome and KDE are library frameworks that applications might or might
> not link against, raising the question of whether the applications
> should move around depending on how they're linked.  Gnome and KDE
> settle very well into the /usr hierarchy (simply by specifying
> --prefix=/usr).

If we fail to solve the issue about packages optionally linked against
GNOME/KDE I think it would be better to install everything in /usr.

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal

-- 

Mikael Hallendal
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden




[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]