continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

[Scott Kitterman]

"Rick Spencer" <rick.spencer at canonical.com> wrote:

>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?
>
Much as I'd prefer that, I don't think it's consistent with FHS guidance for /opt.  I like extras-ubuntu.  Putting extras first makes it more obvious that it's not precisely part of Ubuntu.

Scott K