On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 10:30:51PM -0500, Robert W. Current wrote: > Although I understand that the de facto standard for some of the larger > Linux distributions uses /usr/bin as the default location for software, > I feel that /usr/bin growing to several G of software is a real problem > point for system administration. Furthermore, the convention is not > completely standardized, shown by the use of /usr/local by distributions > such as Slackware.
This is what I was getting at. You accused Dan Quinlan of trying to force standards onto people under the mantle of the LSB, then you turn around and push this. Don't you see the difference between specifing a subset of software (which is the task of the LSB) and specifing a complete set of software (which is what you're proposing)? Telling distributers that they have to move their software out of its existing location and into some new (as yet undecided) location is *not* within the scope of the LSB. As I understand things, one of the original goals of the LSB was to be inclusive, while your proposal is nothing but exclusive--only distributions that subscribe to one way of laying out filesystems need apply. > I feel that this issue would be best addressed by people with long term > experience in system administration, instead of people speaking on > behalf of de facto standards imposed by Linux distributions. This will You really need to work on your presentation. Did you really mean to suggest that Linux distributions are, as a rule, put together by inexperienced people who create purely arbitrary standards? -- Mike Stone
