[indiana-discuss] "no scripting zone" and isaexec(3C) == architectural

[a b]

> Work is scheduled to alter packaging system to prevent a user from 
> installing packages with conflicting resources.  It is actually 
> desirable that some software delivers into the same place to allow it to 
> replace another component.

If I understood what you wrote correctly, IPS will at least in part emulate sgi IRIX inst(1M) capabilities?
If that is the case, it's the best news I've read about "Indiana" since her inception.

> The OpenSolaris distribution, as you are aware, is experimenting with 
> changes that have not yet made it through ARC.

Yes, I'm acutely aware of it, to the point of immense frustration.

> Regardless, I don't see 
> the issue here.  Ubuntu, et al. are quite successful despite the lack of 
> adherence to the Sys V filesystem specification from a user perspective.

Ubuntu, just like other mainstream distros, is supposed to adhere to the Linux standards base ("LSB") specification.
And here comes the kicker:

"Linux-Magazin Online: Ist Ubuntu LSB-konform?

Shuttleworth: Ja. Ich glaube, die erste zertifizierte Ausgabe war die Version vor Dapper."



In the words of Mark Shuttleworth himself, Ubuntu is LSB-compliant, starting with "Dapper".


Now, for those unfamiliar with LSB, it is a system engineering specification. One very important
part of this specification, very much relevant to the argument you are trying to make in the above
quote, is section 16.1 of the LSB spec, which Ubuntu is supposed to be compliant to.

Section 16.1 references the filesystem specification, which mimics System V filesystem(5) layout 1:1:

http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html

By the way Shawn, you might perhaps find section on /opt in the FHS particularly interesting, with
regards to the argument you are tying to make:

"/opt : Add-on application software packages"
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#OPTADDONAPPLICATIONSOFTWAREPACKAGES

"/etc/opt : Configuration files for /opt"
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#ETCOPTCONFIGURATIONFILESFOROPT

"/var/opt : Variable data for /opt"
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#VAROPTVARIABLEDATAFOROPT

So as you can read for yourself, in the words of Mark Shuttleworth himself,
Ubuntu very much follows the System V filesystem(5) specification, because that distribution
aims to be LSB compliant, and LSB refers to the FHS.

> I won't debate the merits, etc. of this with your nor comment on what
> should or should not be done architecturally as that isn't my
> responsibility.

Fair enough; would you be so kind as to please point me to the people who do,
in case you know who they are?  Thank you kindly in advance.

> I'll just simply say that I see no issue with packaging
> for /usr as most packages are moving towards, and that I believe most
> users will expect that.

To be quite honest and blunt, I couldn't possibly care less what "most users will expect".
Contrary to my nickname, I'm a system engineer, and my job is to

a) adhere to specifications, if there are any

b) make sure that the software I bundle and produce JustWorks(SM)

and

c) make money off of it. I don't consider myself to be an idealist.

_________________________________________________________________
Show them the way! Add maps and directions to your party invites. 
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/events.aspx