* [gentoo-dev] Re: any interest in removing /usr/qt and /usr/kde ?
@ 2004-09-28 2:51 99% ` John Croisant
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: John Croisant @ 2004-09-28 2:51 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
Dan Armak <danarmak <at> gentoo.org> writes:
>
> /usr/qt,kde was my decision at the time. I didn't see any obvious better
> FHS-mandated place to put them in. If there's a better place, I'd at least
> like to hear about it.
I'm a fan of tearing KDE/QT apart and scattering the pieces into their proper,
FHS-friendly places. That is, /usr/kde/share might become /usr/share/kde-X.Y,
and so on. /usr/{kde,qt}/ would be phased out (perhaps keep a directory full of
symlinks to the new places while everything settles). Whether or not this is
feasible, I can't say -- but it sure would be fun for whoever writes the ebuild!
To let multiple versions co-exist, you could use version appending for
directories/libraries (/usr/lib/kde-X.Y) (this is what gnome-2 uses, as foser
pointed out, http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/21414 ). I don't
see anything in the FHS this goes against (in word or spirit, as I read it), and
a few packages in portage already use this style (not just in /usr/share, but in
/usr/lib, /usr/bin, etc). Taking a peek in /usr/lib, I see Abiword-2.0, gtk-2.0,
the gnome-related libraries, and python having directories using this versioning
system (although python doesn't use the dash). Plus, it seems (to me, at least!)
to make sense: the shared directories are versioned, the library files directly
in /usr/lib are versioned (libfoo.so[.x[.y.z]]), so why not the library
directories in /usr/lib?
The FHS defines the bare minimum (and a few optional) presence of directories,
but beyond that some decision should be made, ideally between distros (and maybe
even between *nixes), as to what hierarchy/naming conventions should be used for
subdirectories.
Hopefully, the new major versions of KDE and QT will make it clearer where they
should go (perhaps by separating the files in a FHS-friendly way). I don't think
that leaving /usr/{kde,qt} in place for the current versions, and "starting
fresh" with the new versions would work, because you'd have to keep the current
versions around anyway (or start up this discussion again) for applications that
don't get updated to the new KDE or QT versions.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2004-09-19 19:50 [gentoo-dev] any interest in removing /usr/qt and /usr/kde ? Thomas Weidner
2004-09-19 20:06 ` Dan Armak
2004-09-28 2:51 99% ` [gentoo-dev] " John Croisant
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox