A really messed-up /opt

ganlu · 2004-11-05 11:46:41

After reading article of osnews, I just complain about /opt. I partially agree with put big package into /opt, but not all packages. Now I have "mozilla-firefox"/ "mono"/ "gnome"/ "opera"/ "java"/ "mozilla-plugin"/ 'sdl-perl..' in the /opt, which make the good will of /opt to become a sad thing.
Anyway is there a criterion or something like?

z4ziggy · 2004-11-05 11:51:38

can u please post a link to the article?
regarding the /opt, it looks like /opt(ional) to me, ie, non-system packages. but thats just my guess.

cereal · 2004-11-05 14:12:23

The article he refers to is linked in the "slackware vs. arch"-topics in this forum and can be found on OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=8761

Indeed, opt stands for "optional"...

This directory is reserved for all the software and add−on packages that are not part of the default installation.

From: http://www.tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Filesyste … l/opt.html

Egil.B · 2004-11-05 15:36:20

/opt is just a mess. Only big packages like Gnome, and closed packages like Opera should be there imho.

cactus · 2004-11-05 19:06:03

where would you put them then?
how would you avoid a "mess" in there?

contrasutra · 2004-11-05 23:08:37

OK, this "I hate /opt" thing comes up a lot.

I have yet to see one GOOD reason given except for "it's messy". Hello, have you seen /usr? That's not exactly clean. You shouldn't have to really mess with any of the files anyway. Or people say it doesn't fit THEIR standard of /opt (usage is up to the distro, really).

Honestly. Arch always adds the proper directories to your PATH, it shouldn't be any different than working with them in /usr. I have NEVER had a problem, and I've got about 20 things in /opt right now.

So unless people want to give a solid technical reason for not liking /opt, this thing is going to go the way of DevFS (people bitching about things they don't understand). And either way, it's not a big deal, and shouldn't affect usage.

I do think I understand why people "have problems" with /opt though. I see this all the time on the IRC channel. People don't know you have to re-login or re-source your /etc/profile once something installs in /opt to have it added to your PATH (this fact maybe should be publicized more). So because they don't realize the "solution" is as simple as a sourcing or logout, they go through all these elaborate measures (I've had people suggesting the strangest things on the IRC channel, and these are long time users). I smell a FAQ.

phrakture · 2004-11-05 23:23:38

I'll definatly side with contra on this one: check out usr... or hell "ls -R" on /etc - everything is a mess. It's part of having a complex system. You want something simple, run embedded linux on a cell phone.... but you're running a desktop computer which you use to check your email, browse the internet, develop, check the weather, watch movies, talk to friends, etc etc - it's going to be complicated there's no way around it.
The only time I ever have a problem with using /opt is for singular files (someone made a pkgbuild that installed ONE binary to /opt/something/bin) - put that shit in /usr. Also, bittorrent bothers me, as it provides a setup.py file which default installs to /usr/bin but someone made the pkgbuild to manually copy everything to /opt/bittorrent/bin.... sigh...

Don't expect everything to be clean and organized - especially if you are using a package manager which is not under your control...

ganlu · 2004-11-06 00:53:04

Since we have seemed to mess up /usr, why we continue to mess up /opt, I quite like to see /opt/gnome, /opt/mono etc, but I totally don't understand why put 'sdl_perl' or something like that into /opt instead of /usr, what is more annoying, it's "sdl_perl-1.19.2". We all know to put such things into /opt, we have to solve some problems(we have to put many additional variables in the environment setting) , if /opt solution can't give us any further advantage, why we should struggle for it?
There should be a criterion or poll that what packages could be put there, what couldn't.

apeiro · 2004-11-06 01:06:56

Actually, sdl_perl installs to /usr.

You probably have an /opt/sdl_perl-1.19.2, which belongs to sdl_perl-compat, which is installed to /opt so it can coexist with the newer sdl_perl package, as they share almost all their filenames.

sdl_perl-compat is needed for frozen-bubble, IIRC.

ganlu · 2004-11-06 09:43:57

Yes, but could that be an reason or 'excuse' for putting them /opt? i am not offending, but really thinking.
Thank you for your information, that's part of frozen-bubble's 'fault', I admit.

FoPref · 2004-11-06 13:23:16

my opt:

drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 2004-09-05 04:23 doomsday
drwxr-xr-x 7 fopref root 4096 2004-07-19 00:03 fuhquake
drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 2004-09-02 00:26 gecko-sdk
drwxr-xr-x 13 root root 4096 2004-11-02 15:52 gnome
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 2004-10-08 03:42 java
drwxr-xr-x 7 root root 4096 2004-10-23 12:18 mozilla
drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 2004-10-23 12:18 mozilla-firefox
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2004-10-27 03:01 mozilla-plugins
drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 2004-10-07 23:18 openoffice
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 2004-04-06 20:44 ottd
drwxr-xr-x 11 root root 4096 2004-09-13 10:17 qt
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 2004-09-08 00:35 sdl_perl-1.19.2

what I can understand and support:
doomsday, fuhquake, gnome, java, mozilla, openoffice, ottd

perhaps gecko sdk

what I can't believe is in there:
sdl_perl
qt

why those?

cu
Ford Prefect

apeiro · 2004-11-06 17:50:33

FoPref wrote:

what I can't believe is in there:
sdl_perl
qt
why those?

Well, I've already explained sdl_perl.

As for, QT, why not?

[jvinet@mars ~]$ ls /opt/qt
bin  doc  include  lib  mkspecs  phrasebooks  plugins  templates  translations

When packaging it, I had the choice to stick those sub-directories in their respective /usr locations, or package them all together, which QT wanted anyway. Then I could set QTDIR to be /opt/qt and it could find all QT-related stuff under that.

The /usr way would have been messier:

bin -> /usr/bin
doc -> /usr/share/qt/doc (or rm'ed entirely)
lib -> /usr/lib or /usr/lib/qt
mkspecs -> /usr/share/qt/mkspecs
phrasebooks -> /usr/share/qt/phrasebooks
plugins -> /usr/lib/qt/plugins
templates -> /usr/share/qt/templates
translations -> /usr/share/qt/translations

Now, if someone can concisely tell me why QT doesn't belong in /opt, then I'll seriously consider moving it.

As it stands now, this topic comes up about once every two months, and each time someone says "/opt is dumb and ugly" but they don't qualify it with a good reason. Apps still find the qt libraries, and binaries are still in your PATH.

So, why can't you believe QT is in /opt?

FoPref · 2004-11-06 17:58:13

now I can
qt sucks, that's the reason.

I can indeed believe that. Sorry for stealing your time.

apeiro · 2004-11-06 17:59:33

Don't worry, it ain't stealing. Now if someone else asks about QT, I can point them to this thread.

boo to QT.

tranquility · 2005-02-05 01:28:24

princeofdenmark wrote:

/opt in archlinux looks like c:Program Files in windows.
and so many search paths slows system.
why not to place libs and executables to their /usr locations if it possible?

I'll say this reaaaaaaly slow.... O....P.....T.....I.....O.....N....A....L....
Actually I think stuffing everything in /usr would REALLY resemble that Windows dir.

I really can't understand you people. Why do you have that fixation over a directory?
Do as contrasutra said and go check out /usr please and stop this ridiculous debate

miqorz · 2005-02-05 03:47:09

tranquility wrote:

princeofdenmark wrote:
/opt in archlinux looks like c:Program Files in windows.
and so many search paths slows system.
why not to place libs and executables to their /usr locations if it possible?
I'll say this reaaaaaaly slow.... O....P.....T.....I.....O.....N....A....L....
Actually I think stuffing everything in /usr would REALLY resemble that Windows dir.
I really can't understand you people. Why do you have that fixation over a directory?
Do as contrasutra said and go check out /usr please and stop this ridiculous debate

Best. Post. Ever.

With people like the original poster around, I can fully understand how elitists are formed.

kth5 · 2005-02-05 13:53:54

just one more comment on this.

i think i've said this before: if one doesn't like the packaging, he/she should modfiy the PKGBUILD or if he/she doesn't know: learn or go use another distro for:

THIS IS NOT A BUG, IT'S A FEATURE!

period.

vicious · 2005-02-05 14:31:22

I wonder why there are so few arguments on the side of those who want to keep the status quo. It usually ends with words "recompile it yourself with ABS", "use another distro", "it's a feature", and so on. These are not valid arguments. You're being rude. You don't say WHY it is the way it is. You say only because that's the way you want it to be.

Come on, I want to see REAL discussion.

For example, you actually don't have any arguments for /opt directory which could hold water. Because there is really no good reason for keeping this directory. The existance of package manager implies redundancy of the /opt directory.

CRUX manages to keep the whole GNOME in /usr. Why Arch doesn't?

kth5 · 2005-02-05 15:21:51

CRUX manages to keep the whole GNOME in /usr. Why Arch doesn't?

why should it? well, i did come up with an argument that was as meaningful as the others were againts /opt. it's all a matter of preference, i like the way it is atm. everything big on which nothing but other stuff in /opt depends should go to /opt. actually i'd like to see even more stuff in there, like everything i can "rm -rf" w/o any impact on the system but packagmanagmenent. tell me how you'd do that in /usr? well, i find it messy in there. opt is a pretty beautiful solution if you ask me. btw, this is VERY obvious and shouldn't even be mentioned in further detail again as it was already on this topic. /opt being messy/messier than /usr? totally untrue.

and again, it's not a bug but a feature! if you don't like it you have a problem with your very own preference. if it sounds rude i wonder what makes people think that a feature should be disabled b/c they don't like it even if it doesn't improve or fix anything.

Dusty · 2005-02-05 15:56:35

The reason that stuff is stored in /opt is that Judd and the other developers like it that way. Plain and simple. Why do they like it that way? Two reasons:

a) they think its 'neater'
b) its easier to package

I don't think there's much more for anybody to say on this topic except "I agree with a" or "I agree with b", but I won't lock this topic in case their are meaningful comments to come.

Dusty

cmp · 2005-02-05 17:46:57

just a little suggestion: why not use /opt/bin dirs with symlinks to all binary files, this way $PATH/etc wouldn't be messed up, as they are now (that's the only thing bothering me) and /opt/lib /opt/man accordingly.

btw.: how can I disable avatars? - I really get annoyed by some.

cactus · 2005-02-05 20:25:23

cmp wrote:

btw.: how can I disable avatars? - I really get annoyed by some.

Depending on the browser you use, some have "ignore images from this server" options, but...being that all the avatars are uploaded to this forum, and not linked offsite, it is pretty hard to do that without hosing the forum.

sweiss · 2005-02-05 21:26:49

I think /opt is being used because it is much cleaner this way, and you can easily tell which configuration file goes where and does what. And again, /opt is for optional packages. I like the current way of things. It's either a messy /opt or a messy /etc, /usr etc.

And /opt doesn't get messy as there's a directory for each application.

That's the way I see it, at least.

miqorz · 2005-02-06 01:03:29

I only have ONE pacman installed /opt entry.

The rest have been done by me, LFS showed me the way of why /opt is superior to a over-loading /usr with so much stuff that can get messed up.

::{root@tobias (08:00:04) - /home/miqorz }::
.oOo. ls /opt
apps e16 e17 gcc-2.95.3 mozilla

apps = self compiled apps i'm too lazy to make arch builds of
e16 = enlightenment DR16 CVS
e17 = enlightenment DR17 CVS

And the rest are quite obvious.

Mozilla is the only one put there by pacman.

But as I've said, ever since I read the LFS manual I've been a huge fan of /opt and was over-joyed to know Arch used that system.

Benedict_White · 2005-02-06 02:25:00

A lot of folks seem to be complainingthat /opt is messy.

Well, fair enough, I don't like mess either, but having just built a few perl packages, and having set up many Linux boxes, (A few Arch) and many Windows and NetWare boxes as well I can tell you that any box a user uses is going to be messy somewhere. That is it.

Servers clean, end user machines a mess.

I understand that it is illeagal in all the jurisdictions I know of to execute end users, so I am afraid there is going to be mess, the only question is where we put it.

I am happy with Arch and /opt, but then I could be happy with elsewhere. The fact is though, there is still mess and it is still somewhere.

Arch Linux

#1 2004-11-05 11:46:41

A really messed-up /opt

#2 2004-11-05 11:51:38

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#3 2004-11-05 14:12:23

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#4 2004-11-05 15:36:20

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#5 2004-11-05 19:06:03

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#6 2004-11-05 23:08:37

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#7 2004-11-05 23:23:38

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#8 2004-11-06 00:53:04

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#9 2004-11-06 01:06:56

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#10 2004-11-06 09:43:57

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#11 2004-11-06 13:23:16

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#12 2004-11-06 17:50:33

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#13 2004-11-06 17:58:13

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#14 2004-11-06 17:59:33

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#15 2005-02-05 01:28:24

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#16 2005-02-05 03:47:09

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#17 2005-02-05 13:53:54

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#18 2005-02-05 14:31:22

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#19 2005-02-05 15:21:51

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#20 2005-02-05 15:56:35

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#21 2005-02-05 17:46:57

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#22 2005-02-05 20:25:23

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#23 2005-02-05 21:26:49

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#24 2005-02-06 01:03:29

Re: A really messed-up /opt

#25 2005-02-06 02:25:00

Re: A really messed-up /opt

Board footer