On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Albert den Haan wrote: > Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:16:14 -0400 > From: Albert den Haan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Lsb-CommonPackaging] URGENT Proposal: Package naming schemes > Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:15:42 +0200 > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > >From: Albert den Haan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >I proposed at one time that the LANANA (make sure that term ends up in > > >the glossary!) assigned name also be the packages installation directory > > >under /opt/<pkgname> with its sub directories under packager control. I > > >don't remember hearing of any problems, so we should go with that too. > > > > >What was the word on where configuration files of such package should > > >go? /opt/<pkg>/etc? > > > > The global config goes to /opt/<pkg>/etc (note that /opt may be exported > > via NFS) > > a local config goes to /etc/opt/<pkg>/ > > *That* I can live with! > > Has any default vs. overriding file instance discussion happened yet? > For example: "If possible, the settings in /opt/<pkg>/etc will be > defaults while any settings in the corresponding files in > /etc/opt/<pkg>/ will take precedence and override the defaults." I > know this is a pain to code the first time, but administrators of sites > who do export/import /opt will thank us for the effort. > Indeed you I would thank, and I also know of systems where /opt is mounted with amd because of an eavy congested network.
Luigi Genoni
