<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'><hr id="zwchr"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255);margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bkabrda@redhat.com" target="_blank">bkabrda@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<br>
</div></div>Again, citing FHS:<br>
<div class="im">"Distributions may install software in /opt, but must not modify or delete software installed by the local system administrator without the assent of the local system administrator."<br>
<br>
</div>How can this be interpreted as "non-OS vendor supplied"?<br></blockquote><div><br>This is one of many places in which FHS is vague but that's the common interpretation all distributions rely on<br><br>
Rahul <br></div></div></blockquote>"Distributions may install software in /opt"<br><br>What do you find vague about this sentence?<br><br><br>-- <br><div><span name="x"></span>Regards,<br>Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda.<span name="x"></span><br></div></div></body></html>