Xorg version number change

Vladimir Dergachev volodya at mindspring.com
Sun Oct 10 18:27:27 PDT 2004

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:

> Oh man, no.  Why?
> For starters, I don't think this tree should even exist.  But if we take
> it for granted that it must exist for some strange reason, why must we
> include the version number in it?
> GTK isn't installed to /usr/gtk+-2.4.
> GNOME isn't installed to /usr/gnome2.8.
> KDE isn't installed to /usr/kde3.3.

I often install kde like this:

And make a symlink: /usr/local/kde

This helps to use multiple trees at the same time. Admittedly I have not 
done this in a while - KDE has gotten so stable that I rarely compile all 
of it myself.

> xterm isn't installed to /usr/xterm-0.94.
> Apache isn't installed to /usr/apache-1.3.29.

Well, Tcl/Tk installs its shells like this:


Also, there is a packaging system called "stow" that allows to store
each package in a separate directory and only put symlinks to executables 
in /usr/bin/ .


                          Vladimir Dergachev

> To take the example of a proprietary UNIX suite par excellence; last
> time I checked, iPlanet installed to /usr/netscape, not
> /usr/netscape-iplanet-x.x.x.  So, even in the most abhorrent case of
> there being a separate subdirectory under /usr (why? why? why?), there
> is no way known the version number should be playing a part.
> I don't think the separate directory under /usr should exist per
> default, but if it does, there is absolutely no reason to include the
> version number.  I think it's just dumb.  Really, really dumb.
> -- 
> Daniel Stone                                            <daniel at freedesktop.org>
> freedesktop.org: powering your desktop                http://www.freedesktop.org

More information about the xorg mailing list