Re: tux assistant idea
"Mike Hearn" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.lsb.discuss |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> 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. Yes.... and? Bear in mind simply installing the bulk of a package into a new directory each time would not give you NeXTStep style appfolders. It would simply change the on disk layout and mean a bigger PATH. > 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. That's because the system Apple adopted has serious flaws. It's barely workable on MacOS, and not workable at all on Linux. There are discussions of the problems of appfolders here: http://autopackage.org/faq.html and here: http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=2307&offset=60&rows=75#55961 > 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) They are one and the same, in a sense. Putting shared libs into the same directory has various advantages, esp in regards to networking settings. There may be smarter ways of locating the DSOs, but the current system isn't that bad. > 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. If they are "deserting in droves" because of the directory layout, then they need to get their priorities straight. IMO the MacOS approach to packages and dependancies will bite them on the ass later (is already doing so to some extent with the rather shambolic rollout of weak references). As to the distinction between /usr, /usr/local and /opt, yes, the FHS could be clearer I think. However, although you can install packages each into its own directory, I don't really see where the benefits come from. Anyway, end users shouldn't really see the UNIX fs layout anyway, it should be abstracted by the GUI. thanks -mike