[lsb-discuss] tux assistant idea

George Kraft gk4 at austin.ibm.com
Tue Feb 4 08:26:47 PST 2003

Currently, we have over a dozen LSB certified systems following the
FHS.  As we move forward trying to get the ISVs to certify, then they
will be following the FHS and registering themselves with LANANA.  I
believe we have adopted a good definition, and we have a good process
and plan for adoption.

George (gk4)

On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 08:28, rahul at reno.cis.upenn.edu wrote:
> 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...

Max OS X has the potential to become LSB certified  :-)

> 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