continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

Scott Kitterman ubuntu at
Tue Nov 16 20:42:05 GMT 2010

On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 03:21:46 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 can see that.  I'd strongly prefer it not be something that is exactly 
Ubuntu.  Even something like ubuntu-arb or ubuntu-appdevel would be much 
better (apps-on-ubuntu?).

Scott K

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list