continuing conversation from UDS-N - Application Review Board

[Philipp Kern]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:31:13AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 07:44:24PM +0000, Shane Fagan wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 11:38 -0800, Rick Spencer wrote:
> > > Does "/opt/ubuntu/" perhaps suggest a bit of "officialness" or support
> > > from the Ubuntu community, whereas these apps are specifically *not*
> > > suppose to have such a connotation? 
> > Yeah I get what Rick is saying here. Does using /opt/ubuntu imply that
> > these apps are officially supported in some capacity? I think it does a
> > little, id say /opt/extra is a better option.
> We don't own the /opt namespace, so "extra" is far too general.  See
> http://www.lanana.org/lsbreg/providers/providers.txt for the kinds of
> names that are suitable there.
> 
> "ubuntu-extras" would be fine, I imagine, and connotes exactly as much
> support as "extras.ubuntu.com" does.

FWIW (and I didn't see this raised in this thread) FQDNs do not need to be
registered with the LANANA and can be used instead of a registered string
(see [1]).  So if you distribute the packages through extras.ubuntu.com
anyway, it might make sense to reuse the same name here.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

[1] http://www.lanana.org/lsbreg/providers/index.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20101117/80a43da1/attachment.pgp