/opt/gnome

Tushar T tush at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 12 10:17:17 PDT 2002


Larry Lawrence wrote:

>Tushar T wrote:
>  
>
>>That is true for the entire LFS+BLFS, not just BLFS. That's parts of the
>>learning process!
>>    
>>
>I don't disagree with this, I guess what I'm asking for is a bending of what 
>we know of as the best place to install gnome so that a redo isn't the 
>entire system.  The effects of screwing up the whole system on this install 
>seems warrant a little caution.
>
I think this can be avoided by:

    * Putting a chapter in the begnining of the book for the need to use
      a some sort of package management scheme, the various types of
      schemes and the links to particular hints.
    * Also mention in the book that one of the ways of not screwing up
      is to use /opt. The book uses /usr, but the user may choose /opt.
      Also mention the things to do if the user chooses /opt (such as
      changing PATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH or /etc/ld.so.conf,
      PKG_CONFIG_PATH, INFOPATH, MANPATH or /etc/man.conf).

>I also feel that some are experimenting with both gnome and kde to decide 
>which way they are going.  The BLFS installs allow for this in a manner in 
>which, once the choice is made, a reinstall with a prefix of their choice 
>would be in order.  This can all be explained in the write-up that Mark 
>spoke of, wrapping FHS compliance and BLFS policy on one page, our methods 
>also provide an example of how to test install other packages, before they 
>are integrated into your system.
>
At the very least the, /op/kde-3.0.{1,2,3,4} should be removed. IMO, the 
symlink approach should only be used when multiple versions need to be 
installed simaltaneously e.g. for the jdk, there can be multiple 
versions installed, but even that seems to me like a personal choice, 
not a choice for the book.

>>PS: I don't need to mention that everything written above should have
>>IMO at the front:)
>>    
>>
>Always understood by me. 
>
And also the fact that I am not very rigid on the above being included, 
am making an argument which I believe in:)

><snipped comments from Mark's mail>
>
>So, QT qualified as at that time, there was no make install. Mozilla started 
>out the same way.  I would have to agree that everything BLFS has put in 
>/opt has had a "buggerred up" install procedure.  For those that want to 
>disagree with me on Gnome, my basis is "order and consistency", break 
>either of those rules and you have buggered up gnome.
>  
>
Now that both these packages support make install and follow the proper 
hierarchy, maybe they can be freed from their jail and allow to mingle 
with normal packages.

BTW, about qt it creates $PREFIX/{plugins,templates,mkspecs}; am 
currently checking whether it can fit in /usr

-- 
Tushar Teredesai
LFS ID: 1377
http://tushar.lfsforum.org/

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list