[lsb-discuss] Re: PROPOSAL: /opt/<provider>/<package>/]

"Beerse, Corné" c.beerse at torex-hiscom.nl
Mon Jun 2 08:25:19 PDT 2003


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bart Whiteley [mailto:bwhiteley at novell.com]
> 
> Are you saying that you are opposed to allowing /opt/<provider>/bin
> and /opt/<provider>/lib?  Your PATH of "/opt/*/bin:/opt/*/*/bin" would
> still work in this case. 

No, you cut out the part where I said I proposed to let the provider create
any path after /opt/<provider> at any depth and install pacages way down
that tree resulting in installation locations line
/opt/provider/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/package/bin.

> 
> On Monday 02 June 2003 02:02 am, Beerse, Corné wrote:
> 
> > Now it is monday morning, with a fresh cup of coffee, I think there is a
> > disadvantage, one cannot create a $PATH with `set path="/opt/*/bin
> > /opt/*/*/bin /opt/*/*/*/bin"` since the ultimate depth of the path is
not
> > known.

With this $PATH setting, the packages binaries are not found in the above
location.

Hence, the depth of the (default) location should be somehow restricted. But
on the other hand, the restriction should not be a feature-killing,
workaround-creating limit. So there sould be a place for
/opt/<provider>/<bundle>/<package>/bin/... but a location like
/opt/<provider>/<devision>/<bundle>/<variant>/<package>/<version>/bin... is
at least a verry bad example...

Keep in mind, its just a default location, relocatability should prevail.


CBee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/attachments/20030602/26d4512c/attachment.htm 


More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list