From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <44D0D1FC.5050604@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:25:32 +0200 From: Till Kamppeter MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <789E617C880666438EDEE30C2A3E8D10EEA3@mailsrvnt05.enet.sharplabs.com> In-Reply-To: <789E617C880666438EDEE30C2A3E8D10EEA3@mailsrvnt05.enet.sharplabs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Printing-architecture] Proposed filesystem layout for print ppd and driver files List-Id: Printing architecture under linux List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "McDonald, Ira" Cc: mats.d.wichmann@intel.com, wendyp@jurassic.eng.sun.com, rusty@samba.org, printing-architecture , Wendy Phillips McDonald, Ira wrote: > Hi Till, > > I mostly agree with this set of directory paths - thanks for > writing up the summary. > > I think that full FHS compliance is important - partly because > it's a requirement for inclusion in LSB - and partly because > I dislike "reinventing the wheel". > > Except that I do NOT agree that the symlinks should be > mandatory - if a print software vendor wants to store > directly and ONLY in '/opt/share/ppd//', > that is sufficient and _preferable_ to the creation of > more '/opt/' directories for a useless level > of indirection. Does the FHS allow files other than symlinks in subdirectories of /opt/share/ and /opt/lib? Till