network profile
| bio | website | redpointsoftware.com.au |
|---|---|---|
| location | Australia | |
| age | 21 | |
| visits | member for | 1 year, 3 months |
| seen | May 4 at 5:40 | |
| stats | profile views | 5 |
|
Feb 20 |
comment |
What is an appropriate naming structure for storing application packages? It's not a particular software package that requires paths such as this; the point is to use the filesystem as the package manager without deviating from Unix-style naming as much as say, GoboLinux does. |
|
Feb 17 |
comment |
What is an appropriate naming structure for storing application packages? The best practice for the location of the packages, consistent with UNIX-style naming of directories. It does not necessarily have to be best practise according to FHS given that if it already had an allocated area for this kind of thing, I wouldn't be asking :P. In the end, all of the files will by symlinked from their FHS standard areas into the package directories anyway. |
|
Feb 16 |
comment |
What is an appropriate naming structure for storing application packages? I was originally going to go with /opt, but it feels inappropriate to put essential system packages like Glibc under there given that they aren't "optional extras". |
|
Feb 16 |
awarded | Editor |
|
Feb 16 |
revised |
What is an appropriate naming structure for storing application packages? added 240 characters in body |
|
Feb 15 |
comment |
What is an appropriate naming structure for storing application packages? I've already looked at the FHS and it seems designed to have binaries and configuration files located each in their own folders on the filesystem; that's fine because there'll end up being symlinks in those directories into the actual package directories. What I need is a suggestion on where to actually put those package directories that isn't clunky. |
|
Feb 15 |
awarded | Student |
|
Feb 15 |
asked | What is an appropriate naming structure for storing application packages? |
