From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <44C60094.3030809@imurdock.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:29:24 -0400 From: Ian Murdock MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <44C5DD23.1030400@gmail.com> <44C5FBEE.5070901@easysw.com> <44C5FE6D.3010803@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <44C5FE6D.3010803@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: Ian Murdock Subject: Re: [Printing-architecture] resend notes from last week List-Id: Printing architecture under linux List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Till Kamppeter Cc: "Printing-Sc (E-mail)" , Michael Sweet , lsb-discuss , printing-architecture , Wendy Phillips Till Kamppeter wrote: > Michael Sweet wrote: >> Till Kamppeter wrote: >>> Are more directories needed? >> >> /usr/local/share/ppd// >> /usr/local/lib/printdrivers/ >> > > Is it not enough agreeing on one ofthe pairs > > /usr/local/share/ppd// > /usr/local/lib/printdrivers/ > > and > > /opt/printing/ppd/// > /opt/printing/drivers// > > Why are both pairs needed? /usr/local is where system administrators can install printer drivers (say, downloaded manually from linuxprinting.org), and /opt is where vendors can install printer drivers (say, installed via an LSB package downloaded from the vendor's website) that aren't shipped as part of the operating system. Question: Is /opt/printing consistent with the FHS? Wouldn't it be /opt/? Yes, that means there's no canonical place for vendors to drop printer drivers so they are available system-wide, but that's the equivalent problem of not having a single path element for third-party executables, and should presumably be solved in the same manner. (Adding lsb-discuss to this discussion, so we can get FHS feedback.) -- Ian Murdock 317-863-2590 http://ianmurdock.com/ "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige