Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262600AbUJ0TYE (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:24:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262645AbUJ0TW5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:22:57 -0400 Received: from prgy-npn1.prodigy.com ([207.115.54.37]:10650 "EHLO oddball.prodigy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262600AbUJ0TPc (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:15:32 -0400 Message-ID: <417FF43C.5050208@tmr.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:17:16 -0400 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Denis Vlasenko CC: "H. Peter Anvin" , Tonnerre , Geert Uytterhoeven , Linux Kernel Development , Erik Andersen , uclibc@uclibc.org Subject: Re: The naming wars continue... References: <417F2251.7010404@zytor.com><417F2251.7010404@zytor.com> <200410271133.25701.vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> In-Reply-To: <200410271133.25701.vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1746 Lines: 48 Denis Vlasenko wrote: > On Wednesday 27 October 2004 07:21, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >>Tonnerre wrote: >> >>>Salut, >>> >>>On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 02:43:54PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Having /usr/XnnRmm was a mistake in the first place. >>> >>> >>>BSD has /X11R6, whilst I'd agree that /opt/xorg is probably a lot more >>>appropriate. If you want I can take this discussion back to the X.Org >>>folks again, but I don't think it's actually going to change anything. >>> >> >>/opt/X (or /usr/X) is really what it probably should be. > > > Why there is any distinction between, say, gcc and X? > KDE and Midnight Commander? etc... Why some of them go > to /opt while others are spread across dozen of dirs? > This seems to be inconsistent to me. At one time Sun had the convention that things in /usr could be mounted ro on multiple machines. That worked, it predates Linux so Linux was the o/s which chose to go another way, and it covered the base things in a system. That actually seems like a good way to split a networked environment, with /bin and /sbin having just enough to get the system up and mount /usr. I can't speak to why that is being done differently now. I guess someone was nervous about mounting a local /usr/local on a (possibly) network mounted /usr and theu /opt, but that's a guess on my part as well. -- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/