Re: [gentoo-dev] Why the FHS can't be followed

[Jean-Michel Smith <jsmith@kcco.com>]

On Tuesday 02 July 2002 03:06 pm, Luke Ravitch wrote:
> My feeling is that nothing in the /usr tree should depend on anything
> in /opt.  Things in /opt are meant to be self-contained.  If we put
> Gnome and KDE in /opt, where do we put apps that optionally depend on
> them?  E.g, XMMS isn't really a gnome app (and so shouldn't be under
> /opt/gnome) but can have Gnome dependencies (for the applet).

That is a very interesting point I hadn't considered.  I think I agree with
you as well (not that my personal opinion matters a whole lot in this context
:)

> Though I'm generally a big supporter, I think the FHS might be wrong
> on this one.  Gnome and KDE should go under /usr/gnome and /usr/kde.
> I do agree that adding an immediate subdirectory of /usr is not
> something that should be taken lightly.  However, Gnome and KDE are
> significantly entrenched as part of Gentoo that they might warrant an
> X-like exception.

This is a problem we're going to keep running into, perhaps more commonly as
large, free(dom) office suites, new desktops like gnustep and enlightenment,
etc. mature.  Perhaps we should be looking for a more general solution,
rather than making exceptions for gnome and KDE.

I mean, if we've decided the FHS is wrong on this particular point, why not
make the fix more general and all-encompassing?

I would prefer to see /usr/X11R6 remain a relatively "pure" X tree (I never
liked the way Mandrake dumped a lot of non-core 3rd party X apps into
/usr/X11R6/bin, for example), and I do not think /usr/X11R6 offers a general
solution.  What about a big database or SAP application that has no GUI, but
is monstrous and demanding of its own tree, yet for whatever reason doesn't
belong in /opt?

I don't have any bright ideas on what the directory should be called, per se,
and I'm sure someone will think of a more clever name than this, but if we're
going to deviate from the FHS why not make it for just ONE directory, beneath
which subdirectories for large, free package suites like KDE, Gnome,
Enlightenment, etc could reside.  Something like:

/usr/sw/kde/2
/usr/sw/kde/3
/usr/sw/gnome/1
/usr/sw/gnome/2
/usr/sw/enlightenment/16
/usr/sw/enlightenment/17

and so on.  (sw=software, not a very imaginative name.  Perhaps the long 
version is better, e.g. /usr/software/kde/2, etc.)

In any event, the deviation from the FHS would be limited to one directory and
more or less isolated from the rest of the filesystem tree.  Indeed, given
that the FHS doesn't consider the possibility of keeping around multiple
versions of large software suites like KDE and Gnome (something which
*should* be provided for, as that is in keeping with UNIX's tradition of
allowing versioned libraries, etc. to coexist nicely), perhaps such a
solution could be proposed as an amendment to the FHS.

Anyway, just some thoughts from the peanut gallary for your consideration.

Jean.