From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev-return-16130-arch-gentoo-dev=gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: (qmail 11112 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2004 03:00:46 +0000
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197)
by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 28 Sep 2004 03:00:46 +0000
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org)
by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41)
id 1CC8EP-0001Y5-Vz
for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 03:00:46 +0000
Received: (qmail 17853 invoked by uid 89); 28 Sep 2004 03:00:45 +0000
Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Received: (qmail 9811 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2004 03:00:45 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
From: John Croisant <jacius@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 02:51:01 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <loom.20040928T044859-585@post.gmane.org>
References: <ciknvv$b70$1@sea.gmane.org> <200409192306.29528.danarmak@gentoo.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/)
X-Loom-IP: 12.221.78.41 (Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10)
Sender: news <news@sea.gmane.org>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: any interest in removing /usr/qt and /usr/kde ?
X-Archives-Salt: 669be292-c966-4c98-8d5f-222f0ca040f4
X-Archives-Hash: 2b4898cabe4f2c5d0cdc9d44464fd845
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