Shadow Skill wrote:Cokehabit has already made the observation that it becomes easier to work with multiple versions of the same program on one system if you use a single directory for a program. If you need to track down a set of libraries it is much easier to look at an output of directories rather than a boatload of libxxx files that you then have to filter. Yes I have had situations where I had to do this and it was not fun doing ls | grep all over.
I tend to install a few things outside of Portage because I don't have the time to bother writing an ebuild since I know Gentoo doesn't screw with paths too much and pretty much any program I decide to install will work just fine with the standard method of installing things from source; now I could devise my own scheme for those things and probably have it work very well for most things, but it would be better if a more sane layout was used in the first place. Hell Gentoo already creates folders for various libs that are slotted like QT why do you think that is?
And how many times have you had to do that? Even when installing from outside of Portage? If the package provider gives you a sane way of uninstalling the program as well (which he must), you don't have to trawl through directories looking for the program's libraries.
Slots aren't used by the majority of the people. Granted, they are extremely helpful, but they work just fine with the current filesystem layout.
Even though the idea of laying out all program related files in their individual directories is attractive, we need a proper implementation of it worked out before any such efforts are made. And I can't find any. Also, it would need to work as effectively as the current layout works in a networked environment.
Shadow Skill wrote:As far as end users go simply giving end users descriptive names that are not based on the jargon that we understand will help them more clearly understand what things in those directories are for and prevent some confusion. Don't say they just need to learn it like you did, how many of you really understand all those guids in the windows registry? How many of you hate because its so indecipherable. (to you.)
Hardly. Unlike Windows, end users _never_ have to even look at anything outside their home directory. So the comparison with the cryptic registry does not apply. And the registry is quite important in the current way that Windows works.
Like I said, let us see a sane implementation or even a prototype of this model that is as robust as the FHS, and people would make efforts to migrate to it. Until then, it just isn't compeling enough.
And if you're going to say GoboLinux, please check to see if the layout performs well in networked environments, and is as friendly with large updates.
cokehabit wrote:you mean now or the sysadmins of tomorrow? That is VERY important
This isn't a political campaign. So rhetoric won't work. Again,
how will "sysadmins of the future" benefit from a change like this?
Even simply using "" to refer to the root of the installation would solve alot of annoting problems.