On Sat, Aug 29, 1998 at 08:09:06PM -0700, Jim Pick wrote: > One argument I've heard is that it makes disk partitioning easier > (ie. /usr/X11R6 can be split off to another partition) - but that's > not a strong argument, IMHO.
That argument is bogus. /usr/lib is considerably larger than /usr/X11R6, at least on all of the systems I deal with. If someone is short of space on /usr, moving /usr/lib to another partition would be a better choice than /usr/X11R6. On Sun, Aug 30, 1998 at 06:00:06PM +0200, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > Because every other Unix on the planet uses something similar? > Almost everything in Linux has been modeled after those other > Unices and that is part of Linux's succes. Uh, Miquel, Solaris doesn't use /usr/X<anything>. Instead, it spreads things across /usr/openwin, /usr/dt and possibly even /opt. On Sun, Aug 30, 1998 at 09:23:50AM -0700, Jim Pick wrote: > Would it be incompatible if we left the symlinks in? > > I don't think anybody was suggesting that we take them out. I'm not > in favour of anything that would break compatibility. It hasn't been discussed (yet), but I would actually be in favor of eventually removing the compatibility symlinks altogether after allowing sufficient time for everything to be rebuilt and it was shown that nothing would break -- and I am certain that nothing would break. One thing that many people may not realize is that if X was configured to use /usr instead /usr/X11R6, nearly everything else would automatically follow along by simply rebuilding it. The only things that would be left behind, are those which don't use xmkmf or autoconf and instead have hardcoded Makefiles. On Sun, Aug 30, 1998 at 12:20:38PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Such a move would, in fact, break section 4.1 of the FSSNTD, > and would also violate the FHS. I don't think so! IMHO, the key phrase in that section is "This hierarchy [/usr/X11R6] is reserved for the X Window System, version 11 release 6, and related files". My intepreation of this phrase is that nothing except X11R6 may use that directory -- not that X11R6 must use it. > This proposal also does not have an ewasy way of transitioning > between releases of the X WIndow system (like, release 7, or version > 12. In the current method, one may have multple copies of the X > window system on the machine simultaneously, keepin one the default, > and allowing others to experiment with newer version at will. Also > allows an easy roll back by changing 3 links. Sure it does! First, if you're really experimenting, you should put things in an experimental location while you're testing them. You should move things to production locations only after you're satisfied with them. Those of us who mess with test libc's do this all the time. Second, multiple versions of X can coexist just fine in the same hierarchy. It's no coincidence that the directories under /usr/X11R* exactly mirror those under /usr and that the parts that might conflict with other versions of X are in X11-specific directories (e.g. .../include/X11 and .../lib/X11). Give the people who laid out the hierarchy -- they knew what they were doing. On Sun, Aug 30, 1998 at 08:44:43PM +0200, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote: > agreed. why don't ask the fhs team why they left the link for this single > package ? They probably knew it was a contentious, potentially divisive, issue that they couldn't enforce anyway so they decided to punt on it. We're in a different position because if we do reach consensus on it, we can act on it. On Sun, Aug 30, 1998 at 02:14:32PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I want to have both R6 and R7 installed at the same time. I Nobody has suggested that this wouldn't be possible. The only thing that wouldn't easily be possible is to have multiple development environments installed in the default location. If you needed multiple development emvironments, then and only then, would special treatment be needed. Since we already do this for libc5 and libc6, it shouldb't be a big deal. David -- David Engel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
