[kde-solaris] [kde-discuss] KBE 1.0 - Build enviroment for KDE

Alan DuBoff alan.duboff at sun.com
Sun Dec 9 23:31:15 CET 2007

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Shawn Walker wrote:

> I understand your argument, but because of the C++ lib mess and all of
> the special build options we are doing here, I don't think it's
> viable.


All binaries should have the runpath compiled into them, and linked with 
the proper libraries.

> Sun has also established the standard on Solaris 10 systems that
> well-behaved software lives under /opt and system administrators have
> come to depend on that.

This was way before 10, but that's besides the point. The software belongs 
in /usr/.

> Doing otherwise is likely to only infuriate admins; just ask on 
> opensolaris-discuss.

Just, just like other stuff with infuriate them as well. The bottom line 
is that moving forward will cause tension for folks hanging on to the old 

> Now, as far as Indiana / whatever -- I would concede that installing
> KDE under /usr, but all the dependences under /opt would be a good
> compromise.

I believe that Indiana will slowly morph into Solaris. It is only 
scratching the surface with Indiana, but there will be a lot of changes 
coming to Solaris, so get ready for them, IMO.

> That would ensure that our dependencies wouldn't conflict with anyone
> else's and still allow the expectations of *some* individuals to have
> KDE in /usr.

I don't understand your point here.

> Arguably, we could also have KDE live under /opt for these systems but
> install a bunch of symlinks into /usr/bin if so desired.


> I personally don't see what the advantage of installing KDE under /usr
> is if you're going to not have any symlinks in /usr/bin anyway.

Maybe you misunderstand me then, when I say /usr, I mean /usr/bin, 
/usr/sbin, /usr/etc, /usr/lib, etc.../usr being the base.


Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group

More information about the kde-solaris mailing list