[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles

From: Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom
Subject: Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:10:04 -0600
User-agent: Mutt/

> I agree this would be an easy way to fix the problem, but I also think that
> there's nothing wrong with having /X11R6. I think this kind of separation is
> quite useful (unlike /usr) because the user knows, for instance, that a lib
> in /X11R6/lib is for X clients and that programs in /X11R6/bin are all either
> X clients or programs related to the X server. 
        so how is it /X11R6/bin different from /usr/X11R6/bin in that
regard? they would be the same tree, just attached at different places.
        I think X11 should remain under /usr for these reasons:

1. fewer mount points at /. if one makes /usr a separate partition (I
usually do on servers); then /X11R6 would have to be a separate partition as
well, or be lumped into the rest of /; neither of which is a pleasant option
for me. (for this same reason, I abhor /opt, and symlink it to /usr/opt.)

2. it's a bunch of binary, largely unchanging files, like the rest of /usr.
the FHS/unix filesystem philosophy  seems organized around the notion that
files of similar behavior, should be grouped together into trees. this makes
it easy to move or copy functionality (/usr) or behavior (/etc), or data
(/var, /home) between machines. adding a new mount point to /, without
adding a new behavior, seems pointless and needlessly complex. 

3. I don't see any real distinction between /usr/X11R6 and /X11R6 (but maybe
I just came in to the conversation at the wrong point).

Perhaps someone can recap the discussion and bring up some reasons X11 ought
to have its own root tree?

Carl Soderstrom
Network Engineer
Real-Time Enterprises

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]