/opt prefix (Was: Re: BLFS - Target 6.5 or SVN?)

DJ Lucas dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Jul 3 14:18:14 PDT 2010


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/03/2010 09:24 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On 26 June 2010 23:03, Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop73 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  I've got a 6.6 system that I was intending to keep as a sort of "long term
>> support" version (because it uses a long-term stable kernel), but I'm going
>> to have to rebuild that because I can't seem to get html5 working on
>> youtube with midori on gnome-2.28 [ and I just drop everything into /usr on
>> my own builds - that might be about to change :) ]
>>
> 
>  In future, I will avoid /opt as a matter of sanity, and leave it for
> those people who persist in installing binary software. I've used
> parts of gnome2 across at least 10 versions, and this is the first
> time that I've seen enough benefit from a newer version to want
> to upgrade an older system, so for me /usr  it is.
> 

I will continue to deal with building in /opt for Xorg, Gnome, JDK, and
also KDE and OpenOffice (if I ever get around to them).  Xorg hasn't
been much of an issue, and we had almost all of the Gnome stuff fixed. I
was watching when I could and am fairly sure that Wayne's updates had
all of the issues covered for an /opt build of Gnome...assuming that you
follow the book to the letter.  I am working my way through a new 32bit
build right now and will validate just because it's time for a new
build, though I'm probably going to use 2.30.2 (so probably little
value).  At some point, I'm going to have to jump to a 64 bit build.
I'm also not gonna jump on Gnome 3.x right at release, it can incubate
for a tiny releases or two I think.  There will also be many other
package updates along the way.  Anybody have notes to share on 2.30 so
far?

BTW, Ken, thanks for the IceWeasel mention the other day, I actually
hadn't heard of it before now.  Gonna give IceWeasel and IceDove a shot
on this build.  Do symlinked .pc files do the trick for packages looking
for FireFox?  I'd imagine that they would, but having not tried them yet...

- -- DJ Lucas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
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=Ie/M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.




More information about the blfs-dev mailing list