continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

[Scott Kitterman]

On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 03:32:11 pm Micah Gersten wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 02:21 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> > On 11/16/2010 12:08 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> IIRC, FHS expects /opt/<vendor>/<package>.  Perhaps Canonical should
> >> register "canonical" if they haven't already and then allocate
> >> /opt/canonical/quickly or /opt/canonical/arb namespace to this.  Given
> >> the way FHS anticipated /opt to be used, I think Canonical (although
> >> certainly not ideal) may be the best choice.
> > 
> > /opt/canonical has a similar problem to /opt/ubuntu, in implying
> > "officialness" or support from someone (in this case Canonical as a
> > company, rather than Ubuntu as a community/project/distro).
> > 
> > But, there seems to be a fundamental tension here between "official
> > enough to register with LANANA" and "not too official", so perhaps an
> > added level in the path is the best solution, like /opt/ubuntu/extras.
> > It is specified in the FHS "The structure of the directories below
> > /opt/<provider> is left up to the packager of the software..." with
> > /opt/<provider>/<packagename> as a suggestion, not a requirement.
> > 
> > Allison
> 
> I thought that any support for these packages would be coming from
> Canonical and not the community.
> 
> Micah

No.  It's neither.  Support is supposed to come from the application 
developers.

Scott K