[CentOS] Re: Mixing RPMforge and EPEL (Was: EPEL repo)
"Petr \"Qaxi\" Klíma"
qaxi at seznam.cz
Thu Aug 2 07:33:50 UTC 2007
Kenneth Porter napsal(a):
> --On Wednesday, August 01, 2007 4:40 PM -0700 Timothy Selivanow
> <timothys at easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>> There is a way. Make a custom RPM, or even an advanced script (ala
>> gentoo ebuild system). That isn't the problem, it's the name space.
>> There is no guarantee that what ever you choose it going to be unique
>> and therefore not over-written by someone else. How do you think Red
>> Hat does the dual arch libs in x86_64? That was dictated though, and
>> everyone follows it.
>
> What ever happened to putting all non-distro stuff in
> /opt/vendor/application? And referring to any binaries in there by
> abolute path, instead of depending on dumping all binaries in
> /usr/bin. At least for stuff not invoked by hand from a console, that
> should be workable. System services and stuff invoked from icons could
> and probably should use absolute paths.
>
> (I'm not proposing this. I'm asking why it's not the norm.)
>
> We would then have /opt/RPMforge and /opt/EPEL and all their
> respective packages would drop into separate trees.
>
it is bad that it is not norm ... ;-)
Form my point of view (FMPOV) is placing everithing to /usr/bin bad too
over there FMPOV everithing what is not core system should by in /usr/local/bin or bigger packages in /opt
Question is what is part of core system?
Xorg server YES ????
Gnome NO ????
--
Petr Klíma
e-mail: qaxi at seznam.cz
More information about the CentOS
mailing list