also sprach Brian W. Carver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.04.13.2048 +0200]: > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-3.12.html
thanks, i am actually part of the team i guess... > You seem extremely committed on the one hand to following FHS to the letter, > even going so far as to get mad at those who offer opinions rather than > delivering pure unadulterated FHS rationale in their answers simply because debian-* mailing lists tend to get voluminous on such threads, at the same time losing focus and causing ridiculous arguments. i am just tired of it, it wastes everyone's time! > "there's something deep inside me speaking against /opt at the top > of the filesystem hierarchy. i know it's a standard but i don't like > it as i believe that these packages *should* really sit under > /usr/local." > > Well, then THIS is what has caused your dilemma. You either decide > you like FHS so much that you'll do exactly what it says in this > case (see above), or you decide that, as you say, "I don't like it" > and you do what you prefer. You don't actually have an answerable > question here, but rather a decision you have to make. it's something that i am pushing for inclusion with the FHS. there ought to be /usr/local/opt just for that. i don't (yet) have a /opt partition, and when i reinstall debian (on a freshly-made filesystem), /opt is gone. but i don't feel like reinstalling openoffice or vmware or whatever. that's what /usr/local is for, period. i am not saying that the FHS is perfect, it's *under constant development*. i am saying that i don't see enough of a difference between /opt and something in /usr/local to convince me to maintain both. > If your dislike for this has some rationale that you'd like to > persuade the FHS folks of, then you should go to the mailing list > for FHS at > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freestandards-fhs-discuss > and persuade them to address your concerns in an upcoming version of > FHS. i have been on this mailing list for a while, and i have raised this issue before. > Sorry if this sounds pissy, but I feel you didn't ask an answerable > question and then got mad at list members who were unable to do the > impossible. Let's all try to lighten up and realize we're talking > about filesystem conventions here... you have a point. i didn't really get mad. i has stated up front that i wanted educated information, not "i think" or "imho" or "i guess" or opinions. that's what the FHS mailinglist is for. i wanted to employ debian-user as a resource of facts because i couldn't find the info elsewhere. yet, i still got the "i think" reply. sorry, i didn't mean to get snappy, but i do try to advocate: read the listmail, think, think again, and think again before you post. too many folks just post without even thinking and often the response doesn't even address the question. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED] time wounds all heels. -- groucho marx
pgpATJKH7tObj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
