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

List:       kde
Subject:    Re: /opt or /usr/local [Was: A couple of kde-related problems]
From:       Adolf Koenig <rzuw001 () rz ! uni-wuerzburg ! de>
Date:       1999-07-06 8:33:31
[Download RAW message or body]

 
 What deb wrote should have been said in the beginning of the thread 
 'a couple of kde-related problems' .
 It would have made clear in the beginning what the point really is:
 
 If the kde-package is put into one specific directory, be
 it /opt/kde, /usr/kde or somethingelse/kde then new versions are easily 
 manageable, old versions easily saved or removed. This makes
 the life of the system-manger easier and  t h i s  is really the point. 
 It doesn't matter, if you like putting it in /usr/kde and establish
 a link /opt/kde. This is only a matter of taste. But it may be necessary
 if you first put it in /opt/kde and afterwards move it to /usr/kde
 without recompiling the package (depends of the software-programmer, 
 and the necessity may vary from one application to the other)
 
 Of course /usr/kde is also in /usr, but 'putting it in /usr'  means
 the traditional method of putting executables in /usr/bin, libraries in /usr/lib etc,
 thus mixing it with libraries and binaries of many other packages.
 So it is soon impossible without a package manager to keep track
 of 'which file belongs to which package'. So it is virtually impossible
 to remove a package without difficulties, if you don't use a package
 manageing system.  (Even with a package manager it may
 be impossible, because I also know one who doesn't contain a 'remove' 
 function. This was 'good usage' since many years of certain
 big hardware-companies, and I always suspected it was on purpose, 
 because unused, diskspace-wasting software packages too promote
 selling of  (then very expensive) new disks.)    
 
 Of course, if the executables are distributed across many directories
 /opt/package1 .... until /usr/local/packagex  you have to extend the PATH-variable
 to find them automatically.
 
 greetings
 
 A.Koenig 
 
deb wrote_  
> here's the problem: you could put kde into /usr/kde, no problem. it
> is when you put it in /usr by itself that some problems, detailed
> elsewhere can arise. the files that would go into $KDEDIR/bin would
> go into /usr/bin. the files that would go into $KDEDIR/lib would go
> into /usr/lib. and so on. at this point, and probably until kde 2.0
> is solidly released, it will be a good idea either to do nothing, no
> upgrade at all, or to keep it where it can be easily backed up before
> an upgrade is installed. it is of course a good thing to keep current
> backups of the entire drive, but the reality is that few people will
> backup all of /usr before installing a new kde. but many people can
> do a simple recursive copy of $KDEDIR to a different location before
> installing a new version. when kde is in /usr, there is no $KDEDIR.
> 

-- 
Send posts to:  kde@lists.netcentral.net
 Send all commands to:  kde-request@lists.netcentral.net
  Put your command in the SUBJECT of the message:
   "subscribe", "unsubscribe", "set digest on", or "set digest off"
PLEASE READ THE ARCHIVED MESSAGES AT http://lists.kde.org/ BEFORE POSTING
**********************************************************************
This list is from your pals at NetCentral <http://www.netcentral.net/>

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