On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 03:32:11 pm Micah Gersten wrote: > On 11/16/2010 02:21 PM, Allison Randal wrote: > > On 11/16/2010 12:08 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> IIRC, FHS expects /opt/<vendor>/<package>. Perhaps Canonical should > >> register "canonical" if they haven't already and then allocate > >> /opt/canonical/quickly or /opt/canonical/arb namespace to this. Given > >> the way FHS anticipated /opt to be used, I think Canonical (although > >> certainly not ideal) may be the best choice. > > > > /opt/canonical has a similar problem to /opt/ubuntu, in implying > > "officialness" or support from someone (in this case Canonical as a > > company, rather than Ubuntu as a community/project/distro). > > > > But, there seems to be a fundamental tension here between "official > > enough to register with LANANA" and "not too official", so perhaps an > > added level in the path is the best solution, like /opt/ubuntu/extras. > > It is specified in the FHS "The structure of the directories below > > /opt/<provider> is left up to the packager of the software..." with > > /opt/<provider>/<packagename> as a suggestion, not a requirement. > > > > Allison > > I thought that any support for these packages would be coming from > Canonical and not the community. > > Micah
No. It's neither. Support is supposed to come from the application developers. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
