Re: packaging suggestions.

[Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 freenet de>]

On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 17:23 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Mer 15 février 2006 16:30, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 09:45 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 09:11 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 01:13 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 18:42 +1300, Michael J Knox wrote:
> >> > > > Stephen J. Smoogen said:
> >> > > > > On 2/14/06, seth vidal <skvidal linux duke edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > > Could /opt/bro be a possability?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I have started the trek of patching up bro to be a little more FHS
> >> > > > friendly, but no idea as to when I will be finished.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > /opt is discouraged for package-managed software.
> >> > Correction: for OS-vendor supplied packages.
> >> >
> >> > There isn't anything wrong in using /opt rsp. /opt/<package> for
> >> > package-vendor supplied packages.
> >> >
> >>
> >> okay -but surely we count as os-vendor not package-vendor, right?
> > Yep, at least that's how all FE packages currently are being packaged.
> 
> Also /opt is just a loophole the big closed app vendors that compose LSB
> requested. It should not be used on a clean system
?!? A bizarre statement ?!?

/opt's primary purpose is to take "large add-on packages" and has a long
tradition serving as such.

Ralf