On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 17:23 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le Mer 15 février 2006 16:30, Ralf Corsepius a écrit : > > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 09:45 -0500, seth vidal wrote: > >> On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 09:11 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 01:13 -0500, seth vidal wrote: > >> > > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 18:42 +1300, Michael J Knox wrote: > >> > > > Stephen J. Smoogen said: > >> > > > > On 2/14/06, seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > Could /opt/bro be a possability? > >> > > > > >> > > > I have started the trek of patching up bro to be a little more FHS > >> > > > friendly, but no idea as to when I will be finished. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > /opt is discouraged for package-managed software. > >> > Correction: for OS-vendor supplied packages. > >> > > >> > There isn't anything wrong in using /opt rsp. /opt/<package> for > >> > package-vendor supplied packages. > >> > > >> > >> okay -but surely we count as os-vendor not package-vendor, right? > > Yep, at least that's how all FE packages currently are being packaged. > > Also /opt is just a loophole the big closed app vendors that compose LSB > requested. It should not be used on a clean system ?!? A bizarre statement ?!? /opt's primary purpose is to take "large add-on packages" and has a long tradition serving as such. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
