Re: /usr -> /usr/local

> Only infrastructure-level stuff needs to support /usr/local properly,
> not every single package out there. Freedesktop specs already require
> support for /usr/local, and eg. Gnome has followed them for years, see
> also the page I made on the wiki:
> http://trac.autopackage.org/wiki/UsrLocalStatus.

Hmmm, I seem to remember creating a similar wiki page but I don't
remember where it was. At the time it was as much a problem of
distro-specific setups as upstream defaults though. Maybe it's changed
in the last few years.

Anyway, if you say most of the stuff is now fixed I'll take your word for it.

> That's not completely true. I don't know much about MacOS, but on
> Windows namespace conflicts are possible

Sure, but the OS by default doesn't engender itself to namespace
conflicts. Bad developers can certainly add them later if they want to
...

> Good software on Linux is already parallel installable: we have glade
> glade-2 glade-3, DBus already names its configuration directory
> /etc/dbus-1.

Heh. Well, yes, but DBUS actually went through quite a few
incompatible versions, all of which called themselves dbus-1 if I
remember correctly :) Anyway for sure you are right, software which is
designed to do that can be as long as the packages are also done that
way, but it takes extra effort so not much software is like this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: autopackage-dev-unsubscribe-OfajU3CKLf1/[email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: autopackage-dev-help-OfajU3CKLf1/[email protected]