| 2012-11-07 05:47:09 |
Chris Carlin |
description |
I propose that /opt/bin should be added to the default PATH in Ubuntu.
A fine discussion about this, and why Debian doesn't do it, is found here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=45096
In short, the FHS suggests that in some situations packages can/should install content into directories under /opt, particularly in cases of third party software installed by administrators. A few packages already do this, including google-chrome, and it just seems like a good idea to keep the third party stuff isolated.
However, this raises the problem of including their executables in PATH, which obviously can't anticipate /opt/<package>/bin for every possible package. One compromise is to include /opt/bin in PATH and allow packages to symlink their executables there.
Currently, without /opt/bin in PATH, those packages are symlinking out to /usr/bin or the FHS-breaking /usr/local/bin. Either way, this compromises the motivation of keeping /opt isolated and organized.
From the thread linked above it seems Debian doesn't include /opt/bin because their focus on free software gives them the goal of getting everything into official and free packages. They almost wish to discourage third party packages entirely. Ubuntu's focus is different, though, and it seems pragmatic to allow third parties this method of getting executables into PATH.
It seems to me that this would be a trivial change with no downside for Ubuntu, but plenty of upside in terms of Ubuntu's interaction with third parties and their software. |
I propose that /opt/bin should be added to the default PATH in Ubuntu.
A fine discussion about this, and why Debian doesn't do it, is found here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=45096
In short, the FHS suggests that in some situations packages can/should install content into directories under /opt, particularly in cases of third party software installed by administrators. A few packages already do this, including google-chrome, and it just seems like a good idea to keep the third party stuff isolated.
However, this raises the problem of including their executables in PATH, which obviously can't anticipate /opt/<package>/bin for every possible package. One compromise is to include /opt/bin in PATH and allow packages to symlink their executables there.
Let me stop and emphasize that FHS specifies /opt/bin as a special case. This isn't "add to PATH for every use case" it's "add to PATH for a certain case singled out in the FHS."
Currently, without /opt/bin in PATH, those packages are symlinking out to /usr/bin or the FHS-breaking /usr/local/bin. Either way, this compromises the motivation of keeping /opt isolated and organized.
From the thread linked above it seems Debian doesn't include /opt/bin because their focus on free software gives them the goal of getting everything into official and free packages. They almost wish to discourage third party packages entirely. Ubuntu's focus is different, though, and it seems pragmatic to allow third parties this method of getting executables into PATH.
It seems to me that this would be a trivial change with no downside for Ubuntu, but plenty of upside in terms of Ubuntu's interaction with third parties and their software. |
|
