[Prev] Thread [Next]  |  [Prev] Date [Next]

Re: FHS standards and GNOME Igor Zivkovic Wed Sep 29 04:29:44 2004

Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Igor Zivkovic wrote:
>>I don't think there is a point of adhering to FHS in this case since
>>we break it by installing GNOME in /opt in the first place. I believe we
>>should stop supporting software installation in /opt as a way of package
> I must be missing something here.  What is wrong with installing Gnome 
> in /opt?  The FHS says:  "/opt is reserved for the installation of 
> add-on application software packages."  If I use KDE, I certainly think 
> of Gnome as an "add on" package. 

I consider add-on software as a software that is designed to enhance or
expand the capabilities of other software. For example, browser plug-ins,
multimedia CODECs, etc.

> BTW, what do you consider "Gnome"?  All 84 packages we install in the 
> three Gnome Chapters?  Some of these packages are not 'the' Gnome 
> application, but are general purpose libraries used by other 
> applications.  For those libraries, they rightfully go in /usr/lib as 
> general purpose libraries.

I agree. General purpose libraries should go in /usr/lib and if they are
not utilized exclusively by GNOME, moved from the GNOME chapter in the
book as well.

> That said, I'm not opposed to putting Gnome applications into the /usr 
> hierarchy, but I also am in favor of giving users the choice of 
> location.  Looking at the Gnome Pre-installation configuration, we do 
> that.  I would go one step farther by creating symlinks /opt/gnome -> 
> /opt/gnome-2.6 and then using /opt/gnome/bin, /opt/gnome/lib/pkgconfig, 
> /opt/gnome/lib, and /opt/gnome/man.

This is what I meant by saying that we use /opt as a way of package
management. We even encourage it in the introductory GNOME chapter. What
makes GNOME (and some other packages in the book) so special? The way I
see it now is that we just bring unnecessary maintenance and support
problems to ourselves (especially with GNOME packages).

Igor Zivkovic