Re: FHS section 3.8: /opt/<package>/
Alan,
I'm a little slow sometimes, so correct me if I'm wrong. :-) The FHS
states that "add-on application software packages" such as "foo" are
installed in /opt/foo/bin/foo with a symbolic link from /opt/bin/foo.
Configuration would be in /etc/opt and variable files would be in /var/opt.
I don't see how /opt applications are treated differently than /usr/bin
applications, except they are segregated from the base OS. Therefore NFS
exporting /opt add-on applications should work fine as long as /etc/opt and
/var/opt are configured correctly.
The FHS states that no software packages are to be installed under the /usr
hierarchy; therefore, my interpretation is that add-on applications are
*required* to be installed in /opt, and not /usr nor /usr/local. Is this
not the case?
Back to my original inquiry:
How does one resolve /opt conflicts between similar packages being released
from separate sources? What does one do if there are two or more java,
cc, etc?
/opt/java/, /opt/vendor1/java/, /opt/vendor2/java/, and /opt/vendorN/java/
or
/opt/java/, /opt/java/vendor1/, /opt/java/vendor2/, and /opt/java/vendorN/
Does the later require a name registry? What is the rule for who gets the
primary /opt/<package>/?
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.0/fhs-3.8.html
Thanks,
PS: I don't see a FHS email distribution list on
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ Is there one?
George (gk4)
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> on 02/16/2000 03:46:55 PM
To: George Kraft/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox), quinlan@transmeta.com,
lsb-spec@lists.linuxbase.org
Subject: Re: FHS section 3.8: /opt/<package>/
> Not use /opt ? Isn't that what the LSB spec and FHS V2.0 is specifying?
The FHS and LSB don't specify you have to use /opt. They allow /opt to
exist
but there are good techmnical reasons for not doing so - think about NFS
sharing of /usr but not /var and the fact thin client is important
(The FHS is probably the right place for that discussion)
The naming issue applies regardless
Reply to: