touch-packages team mailing list archive

[Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre <mathieu.tl@xxxxxxxxx>]

** Changed in: base-files (Ubuntu)
       Status: New => Triaged

** Changed in: base-files (Ubuntu)
   Importance: Undecided => Medium

** Changed in: base-files (Ubuntu)
     Assignee: (unassigned) => Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre (mathieu-tl)

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to base-files in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1075860

Title:
  Add /opt/bin to PATH

Status in base-files package in Ubuntu:
  Triaged
Status in base-files package in Debian:
  Fix Released

Bug 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.

  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.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/base-files/+bug/1075860/+subscriptions