Re: /usr/X11R6
Hi,
>>"Jim" == Jim Pick <jim@jimpick.com> writes:
Jim> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:
>> Such a move would, in fact, break section 4.1 of the FSSNTD,
>> and would also violate the FHS.
Jim> I think that's a little strong. As long as those directories existed
Jim> (as symlinks), I don't think you'd actually be violating the intent of
Jim> the FSSTND or FHS.
You are incorrect. Look at the language here (I quote the
FHS).
______________________________________________________________________
Filesystem Hierarchy Standard October 26, 1997
4.1 /usr/X11R6 : X Window System, Version 11 Release 6
This hierarchy is reserved for the X Window System, version 11 release
6, and related files.
To simplify matters and make XFree86 more compatible with the X Window
System on other systems, the following symbolic links should be present:
/usr/bin/X11 -> /usr/X11R6/bin
/usr/lib/X11 -> /usr/X11R6/lib/X11
/usr/include/X11 -> /usr/X11R6/include/X11
In general, software should not be installed or managed via the above
symbolic links. They are intended for utilization by users only. The
difficulty is related to the release version of the X Window System --
in transitional periods, it is impossible to know what release of X11 is
in use.
Host-specific data in /usr/X11R6/lib/X11 should be interpreted as a
demonstration file. Applications requiring information about the
current host (from files such as Xconfig, XF86Config, or system.twmrc)
must reference a configuration file in /etc/X11, which may be linked to
a file in /usr/X11R6/lib.
______________________________________________________________________
.
Jim> It appears that X proper has reached the end-of-the-line (given
Jim> the Open Group licensing debacle). Anything that replaces it
Jim> will probably be a variant of some sort (ie. Y, Berlin,
Jim> XFree86-something-or-other). X11R6 is going to be with us for a
Jim> long time.
It is premature to make that assumption just yet. We should
not rush in and make assumptions and design ourselves into a corner
for little or no benefit. Remebmer: Ahh, just code years as two
digits. This code shan't be running at the turn of the century.
Heh.
>> Other reasons I can think of are compatibility with other
>> Linux/UNIX systems, and backwards compatibility (replacing
>> directories with symlinks maybe awkward with dpkg).
Jim> That's a good reason not to do it - it might be a big transistion.
Jim> Too big, perhaps.
Jim> On the other hand, we have the exact same problem (replacing a
Jim> directory with a symlink) that we need to tackle for the FHS
Jim> conversion. So if we were committed to doing this, it would make
Jim> sense to do it at the same time.
No, we do not need to replace a directory by a symlink. We
have decided to change the info/man etc viewers to look in both
locations, and allow for a gradual transition into FHS conformance.
Given that, niether one of these dir-->symlink conversions
should be done
>> In conclusion, I think this is a stunningly bad idea.
Jim> I'm not convinced it's the best idea either. I'm just trying to get
Jim> everybody to put their arguments on the table.
Jim> IMHO, the idea has some value, because it represents "cleaning up"
Jim> another filesystem mess. Debian is in the unique situation where we
Jim> could decide that moving /usr/X11R6 is the thing to do, and actually
Jim> have the wherewithall to do it. I doubt that any other Linux
Jim> distribution would be willing to spend time and resources on such
Jim> "cleaning up" activities.
And thus we break the FHS, and we become totally different
from other distributions for the sake of aesthetics. I object
strongly.
Jim> Again, IMHO, it would be nicer if we put X on an equal footing with
Jim> all the other competing packages, and didn't give it special status.
Jim> But practical considerations, such as the amount of pain it would
Jim> create for the developers, may be too overwhelming.
Apart from breaking standards and becoming different for no
good technical reason.
Jim> Summarizing, we have four proposed policy options now:
Jim> a) /usr/X11R6 is for the X system only. All dependent
Jim> applications (needs to be defined) would be installed into
Jim> /usr. Where the various libraries are installed would also
Jim> need to be determined.
Jim> b) /usr/X11R6 is for the X system, and all applications and
Jim> libraries which depend upon it. This option makes sense for
Jim> people who want to NFS mount /usr/X11R6, but not /usr (I'm
Jim> not sure if anybody really does this).
Jim> It also segregates the apps so it is obvious what they are
Jim> supposed to be linked against when X11R7 (or some other
Jim> succeeding system) comes out. This may be useful in making a
Jim> transition (ie. we could do pathname-based ldso tricks like
Jim> we did for the libc5 to libc6 transition). It seems unlikely
Jim> that X11R6 is going to be displaced by a successor anytime
Jim> soon.
I like b
Jim> c) /usr/X11R6 is for the X system, and all applications and
Jim> libraries which decide to install themselves there by
Jim> default. In short, there would be no policy where X applications
Jim> should be installed.
Jim> d) Everything gets installed under /usr, including the X system.
Bad idea, for the reasons above.
manoj
--
The proof that IBM didn't invent the car is that it has a steering
wheel and an accelerator instead of spurs and ropes, to be compatible
with a horse. Jac Goudsmit
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: