On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Troy Engel wrote:

> pbrown@redhat.com wrote:
> > 
> > We will of course be making 1.(1.)2 packages available for Red Hat Linux
> > 6.0.
> 
> I'm sure you're reading the other thread.  So, can you give us the
> outline Redhat plans on taking, so we can attempt to work together?  Any
> chance Redhat would defer to Duncan's rpm packages to stop a packaging
> fragment from happening?  He is indicating that the install-script is
> pretty beefy, so perhaps that piece of the puzzle could solve problems?
> 

Sure.

1. We intend to continue to maintain compatibility with the FHS, but will
be moving the includes out of /usr/include directly to /usr/include/kde,
and /usr/share directly to /usr/share/kde as allowed by the FHS, and as
Stephan Kulow's debian packages are doing.

2. I am perfectly willing to get together with Duncan and anyone else who
wants to make sure that things are compatible.  But I *cannot* violate Red
Hat policy, and one of those policies is to be FHS where at all possible.

Stephan is currently (or was the last time I talked) using this
configuration:

kde_htmldir=/usr/doc/kde/HTML \
        kde_appsdir=/usr/share/applnk \
        kde_icondir=/usr/share/icons \
        kde_sounddir=/usr/share/sounds \
        kde_datadir=/usr/share/apps \
        kde_locale=/usr/share/locale \
        kde_cgidir=/usr/lib/cgi-bin \
        kde_confdir=/etc/kde \
        kde_mimedir=/usr/share/mimelnk \
        kde_toolbardir=/usr/share/toolbar \
        kde_wallpaperdir=/usr/share/wallpapers \
        kde_bindir=/usr/bin \
        kde_partsdir=/usr/lib/parts

This is probably what I will go with.  Discussion is welcome of course,
but this seems to be a compliant scheme that also works well.

---
  Preston Brown                                    Systems Engineer
  pbrown@redhat.com                                Red Hat, Inc.