Re: Finding installed package files

From: Tim (tim_at_mail.localhost.invalid)
Date: 04/04/05 

Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 00:24:53 +0930

Edward Diener wrote:

>>>> Out of curiosity, is there a way to tell Linux (or maybe Gnome in
>>>> Fedora 3) in the RPM file to create folders which point to
>>>> executable and documentation which has been installed?

Tim wrote:

>> This doesn't make a great deal of sense... Folders that point to
>> those things?

"Edward Diener" <eldiener_no_spam_here@earthlink.net> posted:
 
> A folder that points to whatever executables and documentation the package
> has, which the end user might need to use or know about, not to all the
> files installed which would be ridiculous. The main reason for such a thing
> is so one knows what functionality has been installed and how it works.

How many are you going to have, on a system that has hundreds or even
thousands of things already installed on it? Yes, Linux comes with the
house, the kitchen sink, and two boats...

As I'd already said, if you installed via RPM (for one example), then the
RPM file has provided all that information for you. A description of the
package, a listing of what's been installed where (every single file).

Most major applications are added to the menus. It tends to only be
command line things that aren't. Though I notice some exceptions, like for
some strange reason Mozilla isn't in the Fedora menus.

> It also makes it easy to execute anything in the product directly from
> the desktop or a common folder rather than having to use the terminal
> and type in a command.

a. Yes, it's a sore point that the Gnome menus are hard to edit, these days
(prior ones weren't too hard). I'm hoping that they get around to fixing
that.

b. Other desktops have menus that you can easily customise. You can even
have ones that look and work almost like Windows, if you're a complete
glutton for punishment.

c. Even on Gnome you can add your own shortcut icons to the desktop, and
the Linux equivalent of the task bar, for anything that *you* want to be
able to quickly launch.

d. Windows also comes with a plethora of functions that aren't in the
menus, and many that aren't even documented. It's not solely a Linux
phenomenon.

> In Windows those folders are traditionally called program groups and are put
> within a Programs folder off of the StartMenu folder so they are easily
> accessible from the Start button.

I'm aware of that, it's just that you didn't clearly describe what you were
meaning, before...

> But one has to know what the names of the things installed are in order to
> call up the 'man' pages for them.

Not so... I think you need to read a few beginner's guides to using Linux.
Even those magazines with cover discs have a few good ones. Learning a few
basic Linux commands would help you get started. The apropos command is a
very useful one, it finds man pages about something.

Try typing this into a command line: apropos formatting

I'd suggest you get one of those Reader's Digest -sized magazines that come
with a set of Linux installation discs. They usually talk you through a
few things that you want to know when first starting out using Linux.

> Despite what some Linux users may believe, that 'man' pages are the
> epitomy of documentation, I personally believe that for some software
> a much better documentation system is needed.

I generally find that the man pages are like dictionary articles. They
list the options, show you the structure, etc. Though some are more
instructive. There's quite a lot that have more documentation, look in the
/usr/share/docs/ directory for a sub-directory named after the program you
want to find out more on.

> I realize Linux installations usually put types of files in very common
> places, but what I am gathering is that the rules for this, while fairly
> regular, are not always observed.

Some of that has to do with the wide variety of different *ix-like systems,
which had their own methodologies, and people coming from those different
backgrounds carrying on in the same way. There's a push to make this all
more uniform. Look for the "Filesystem Hierarchy Standard" for more
information (what, where, and why, etc).

e.g. <http://www.pathname.com/fhs/> 

-- 
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary).  But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.
This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.