[lsb-discuss] tux assistant idea

rahul at reno.cis.upenn.edu rahul at reno.cis.upenn.edu
Tue Feb 4 06:28:33 PST 2003


George,

Truw enough, for third party packages.

Thats not the point though.

The user facing aspects of programs all install themselves into /usr/[bin/lib/etc] rather than /opt/packagename/[bin/lib/etc]. Culturally, this is a result of the mid-90's and the practises of RPM.

Very few 3rd party programs find themselves installing into opt, but rather 
into usr. So an unfortunate orthodoxy has developed because of practises and the other parts of the document. Apple has done many innovative things in taking the old unix /opt and /pkg idea further, but none of this can be seen on Linux.

There are two ways to look at this: should LSB even specify /opt and create another orthodoxy, which is the hands off way of looking at the problem..and secondly, should it be even specifying /usr as it does in section 4. The question there
is should LSB be concerned with the interface of how libraries are made available to third party developers, or with the implementation (loader and ld.so.conf vs filesystem layout)

I belong to the latter camp because I work with students and professors who
work with desktop linux. And they are deserting in droves for the Mac OS-X.
Cant really blame them, because our community has been to steeped in unix for
too long, and where its created its own standards and practises (eg RPM), has 
departed from the nicer unix practises...

Rahul
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 08:09:26AM -0600, George Kraft wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 19:31, rahul at reno.cis.upenn.edu wrote:
> > To play the devil, and go completely on the other side, the argument could
> > be made that for a desktop, the LSB, more precisely the filesystem spec 
> > might even be the wrong solution.
> > 
> > Take the Mac for example. Its filesystem structure derives from the old NeXT,
> > and for users, is way more intuitive. The appliocation structure has more
> > in common with old unix (/pkg/appname/[bin/lib, etc]) than with present day
> > linux systems and their preponderant usage of /usr, which is a consequence of rpm and deb, which in turn is a consequence of the mid 90's where disks were not
> > too large, and repeated libraries were a no-no.
> 
> I'm confused by your statement, because the FHS promotes /opt/ and not
> /usr/, which is similar to your /pkg/ example.  :-)
> 
> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-3.12.html
> 
> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=4121
> 
> George (gk4)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at freestandards.org
> http://freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss




More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list