On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 05:21, J. Estes wrote:
You're not forced to use them for your own software;
put your libraries in /usr/local/lib or /opt/xxx and link
with that.
- Bart
I normaly do exactly that. But that still leaves the user with
481 MB of bloat in /usr/sfw , most of which
Peter Tribble wrote:
That's not at all reasonable. I certainly don't want applications
or libraries that I may need to install my own versions of in
the standard system locations. Doing so only makes the possibility
of conflict more likely. Shoving things like openssl away in
/usr/sfw is nice
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 14:10, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Peter Tribble wrote:
That's not at all reasonable. I certainly don't want applications
or libraries that I may need to install my own versions of in
the standard system locations. Doing so only makes the possibility
of conflict more
J. Estes writes:
I normaly do exactly that. But that still leaves the user with 481
MB of bloat in /usr/sfw , most of which is not required by the core
O/S. This does not include the enormous bloat of Gnome, either. If
OpenSSL is a requirement, the suggestion was made to move it to
Peter Tribble wrote:
Well, it's not *just* OpenSSL, but that was the main topic in the
thread.
Actually, my experience is that openssl is incredibly fragile.
If I build 0.9.7 myself and use my version then I have very few
problems, but building against the /usr/sfw version gave me a
lot of
On 3/21/06, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Tribble wrote:
Well, it's not *just* OpenSSL, but that was the main topic in the
snippage
Which is why it is External and why it is currently in /usr/sfw.
Sorry for wading in at this late point but I have been reading and
reading
Dennis Clarke wrote:
(1) Is there a UNIX standard ? ( this is just yes or no )
no, because there are no UNIX standards. There are X/Open standards
and IETF standards and SVR4 ABI requirements etc etc etc.
(2) What is the UNIX standard?
(3) Do we respect that standard ? ( Is
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Was there a document at some point in history ( this is UNIX and it
has tons of history ) called the FSSTD or was it FHS ?
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html
( this may be a Linux animal however )
That's the Linux Standards Base filesystem layout, and
Alan Coopersmith writes:
Solaris filesystem locations have also traditionally conformed to the
SVID standard (originally from ATT to define what SVR4 was), but I
don't know if we've kept up to date on that.
man -s 5 standards gives some background information on this.
--
James Carlson, KISS
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan Coopersmith writes:
Solaris filesystem locations have also traditionally conformed to the
SVID standard (originally from ATT to define what SVR4 was), but I
don't know if we've kept up to date on that.
man -s 5 standards gives some background
On 3/21/06, Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Was there a document at some point in history ( this is UNIX and it
has tons of history ) called the FSSTD or was it FHS ?
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html
( this may be a Linux animal however
On 3/21/06, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis Clarke wrote:
(1) Is there a UNIX standard ? ( this is just yes or no )
no, because there are no UNIX standards. There are X/Open standards
and IETF standards and SVR4 ABI requirements etc etc etc.
Sort of a question
Joerg Schilling writes:
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan Coopersmith writes:
Solaris filesystem locations have also traditionally conformed to the
SVID standard (originally from ATT to define what SVR4 was), but I
don't know if we've kept up to date on that.
man -s 5
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Once something is in the wos then thats is it. It is part of the
operating system. The concept of core operating system is a matter
for discussion but the wos is the whole thing right ?
Yeah I guess core is a problematic term here. What about part of
the operating
Darren J Moffat writes:
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Once something is in the wos then thats is it. It is part of the
operating system. The concept of core operating system is a matter
for discussion but the wos is the whole thing right ?
Yeah I guess core is a problematic term here. What
Joel Estes wrote:
Bart Smaalders wrote:
You're not forced to use them for your own software;
put your libraries in /usr/local/lib or /opt/xxx and link
with that.
- Bart
I normaly do exactly that. But that still leaves the user with 481 MB of bloat
in /usr/sfw , most of which is not
You're not forced to use them for your own software;
put your libraries in /usr/local/lib or /opt/xxx and link
with that.
- Bart
I normaly do exactly that. But that still leaves the user with 481 MB of bloat
in /usr/sfw , most of which is not required by the core O/S. This does not
J. Estes wrote:
You're not forced to use them for your own software;
put your libraries in /usr/local/lib or /opt/xxx and link
with that.
- Bart
I normaly do exactly that. But that still leaves the user with 481 MB of bloat
in /usr/sfw , most of which is not required by the core O/S.
18 matches
Mail list logo
