[RFC] apturl repository whitelist application process

[Martin Pitt]

Siegfried Gevatter (RainCT) [2009-02-13 16:38 +0100]:
> 2009/2/12 Alexander Sack <asac at ubuntu.com>:
> >  * File system layout of the package should be to install to /opt -
> >  unless there is a good reason for individual files to be shipped
> >  elsewhere.
> 
> What's the reason for this? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I'm
> unhappy with having packages messing with my /opt directory; afaik it
> has traditionally been a directory for the system owner to place there
> what he wants 

No, actually not. /usr/local is the system admin/owner's playground.
IMHO /opt is meant for precisely the purpose that is proposed here,
third-party packages which must not conflict with the OS vendor's
packages.

  http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#OPTADDONAPPLICATIONSOFTWAREPACKAGES

> and I don't understand why we want packages to do
> anything there now. Further, it may also confuse users who will look
> for files in their proper place, and it is inconsistent with all other
> packages (including PPAs, etc.) which install files directly into /.

I agree that it is confusing, but Unix has had not one, but three (or
even four) "proper places" so far (/ and /usr, /usr/local, /opt,
~/.local), for good reasons (different maintenance responsibilities),
and so far this did a pretty good job of not getting too much into
each other's way.

Using /opt is also the only sensible way for providing newer
versions/beta test versions of software which are co-installable with
the previous (stable) version. This is also one of the use cases Scott
Richie brought up.

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)