continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

[Rick Spencer]

On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 15:42 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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?).

I don't want to go on record contradicting the Tech Board here, but
"extras" seems to me to fit the bill. I don't think users will be
exposed to it much, but "extras" seems to imply the kind of "add on"
behavior that we are going for. Would it be possible to reconsider
"/opt/extras/"? If not, maybe "/opt/addons-ubuntu" to pick up on Scott's
idea?

Cheers, Rick