On Sunday 15 June 2003 12:14 pm, Rolf Pedersen wrote: <snip> > > The only other issue you cited, AFAICT, is that Mandrake's package of > nagios puts files in more than one directory: > > # rpm -qpl /backup/contrib/nagios-1.0b6-1mdk.i586.rpm > /etc/nagios > /etc/nagios/cgi.cfg > /etc/nagios/checkcommands.cfg > /etc/nagios/contactgroups.cfg > /etc/nagios/contacts.cfg > /etc/nagios/dependencies.cfg > /etc/nagios/escalations.cfg > /etc/nagios/hostgroups.cfg > /etc/nagios/hosts.cfg > /etc/nagios/misccommands.cfg > /etc/nagios/nagios.cfg > /etc/nagios/resource.cfg > /etc/nagios/services.cfg > /etc/nagios/timeperiods.cfg > /etc/rc.d/init.d/nagios > /usr/lib/nagios/plugins > /usr/sbin/nagios > /usr/share/doc/nagios-1.0b6 > /usr/share/doc/nagios-1.0b6/Changelog > /usr/share/doc/nagios-1.0b6/INSTALLING > /usr/share/doc/nagios-1.0b6/LEGAL > /usr/share/doc/nagios-1.0b6/README > /usr/share/doc/nagios-1.0b6/UPGRADING > /usr/share/doc/nagios-1.0b6/htaccess.sample > /var/log/nagios > /var/log/nagios/archives > > I am not sure what you are comparing to but this list does not seem > inconsistent with the typical Mandrake package, which should strive to > comply with LSB, which invokes FHS2.2: > > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/ > > Different entities have different interpretations/levels of interest in > complying with LSB, so you will have to deal with these inconsistencies. > Furthermore, contrib/ are considered unsupported, so, with all the > other concerns Mandrake has, I doubt that complaints about contrib/ > packages will receive a high priority. There is no comparison to > Windows. Linux is not Windows. What works in Windows is, usually, > irrelevant. You should put some effort into learning how Mandrake works > before you try to re-invent the wheel, IMO. > > Rolf
Who in the world cares about this? The guy(s?!?) who put their time and brains into developing nagios, have done so with a specific placement of files and directory structure in mind. This is CROSS-PLATFORM development. People like me look toward Linux as the platform of choice for RUNNING nagios, as much as this can suprise many, and unless nagios developers think otherwise, their choice of installation should be respected as such, even when packaging their work - to everyone's benefit. Because of the way it has been done, I have been setting/changing/re-configuring and documenting this thing for days, just to make it work ... and trust me - I have gained NOTHING by doing so (there is no value added to knowledge levels, just because one has to go through all possible configuration files, and change them to match the "standard" placement of files). I would have rather liked to get the package default to where the author decided to have it installed, and (perhaps) be offered the choice - for the "standard fans" - to have it installed in a structure like you and me found to exist .. rather than the other way around. Have YOU actually tried to configure and run nagios, from the "simple" way it is being installed by the MDK package? Don't give me the great "LSB" discourse, then, please .. By the way: I have put lots of effort into learning Linux, years ago - not as a developer - true!, but rather as a "tool" user ... Mandrake may be something else to learn, in which case I would be tempted to agree with you, but I honestly - really - had great hopes for it to still be Linux ... or am I wrong here (e.g. libraries MDK "naming" convention come to mind right away, when thinking that the two are not really one and the same .. see other similar comments on this thread, about this ;))? Stef
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
