Proposal for KDE 4.0

[Leo Savernik]

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

Am Donnerstag 19 August 2004 00:57 schrieb Gary Greene:
[...]
> >   KDE is relatively a huge mess compared with traditional UNIX tools,
> > which /usr was designed for.  It needs to be contained.
>
> hmm, by this logic we should request the same from GNOME 

Indeed. Gnome doesn't belong to /usr, and afaik SuSE installs it 
under /opt/gnome.
> or hell, how about 
> XFCE? The sane reason for keeping with /usr as the "default" prefix is for
> the very reasons listed earlier:
>  * Common among other distributors
>  * Shares easily amongst network systems
/opt/<vendor>/share shares easily, too.
>  * Users and Admins _know_ where to find things
Users should never have to "know" where files are located outside of their 
$HOME. Admins should always know where things go, regardless of prefix.

>
> As it is, I'm all for seeing 3rd party vendors use the standard heirachy of
> a system instead of creating their own trees. 
This effectively prevents parallel installation of different versions of an 
app. (Think closed source, where you cannot recompile with a different 
prefix.)
> I moved from Windows to get 
> away from the insane FS layout, I don't want to see KDE or any
> project/product force irregular paths and resource locations to
> non-standard locations.

The directory layout under $KDEDIR is perfectly sane:
$KDEDIR/bin
$KDEDIR/lib
$KDEDIR/share
$KDEDIR/man
...

I don't see any irregular paths/resource locations here. That most 
applications adhere to the sane layout hasn't got anything to do with /usr, 
but can mostly be attributed to the automake/autoconf framework.

mfg
	Leo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQFBJH30j5jssenUYTsRAkX9AJ0S5TprzKXhPMvGatp0LdmXRnc0cwCeK+an
/Q2qRzBJbxKW+epajn7iHcQ=
=aHHK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----