Re: intent to package TETware and VSX-PCTS from TOG
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 12-Jan-99, 09:53 (CST), Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> wrote:
> > I would read that to mean "packages other than those distributed with the
> > delivered OS", otherwise all Debian packages with priority less than
> > Standard could be considered "add-on package" and would be required to go
> > into /opt.
> >
> > Debian as not yet chosen to addopt FHS, and most of the discussions on FHS
> > have made it clear that many developers don't want to adopt /opt for
> > anything delivered by Debian. It was for this reason that I did not
> > suggest /opt as a viable solution.
>
> While I agree with your general opinion (/opt is not generally used
> by Debian delivered software) TETware seems like a good exception.
> Its directory layout is not FSSTND compatible, and making it so would
> break its main clients (the test cases) (this is assuming I correctly
> understood your previous description). /usr/lib is somehow unappealing,
> although I suppose it's the best second choice.
It was the fact that /usr/lib was somewhat unappealing to me that prompted
the discussion in the first place. I am currently leaning toward
/usr/share, so I can pre-configure and compile the package components and
reduce the package size, delivering a -dev package with the original
components. I can just as easily do this in /opt, but it was my
understanding that this was treated like /usr/local to components of a
distribution. Besides, the suggested layout of /opt only works for TETware
if it is the only thing installed in /opt, which is not always the case.
I would be very surprised if the concensus was to put it in /opt.
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: