Bundled Applications for GNU/Linux?

munehiro asks: "As an addicted GNU/Linux and Mac OS X user I recently tried to install binaries and libraries on a Linux box using an approximation of the elegant and clean approach known as the Mac OS X bundle (everything about each app or lib under a different directory) as opposed to the Linux standard approach 'everything under a common prefix' (normally /usr or /usr/local) with applications and libraries mixed in the standard subdirs bin, lib, share and so on, and found administration life much easier. What do other, more experienced readers think about the problems and improvements related to dropping the current Linux approach for a 'bundle-like' one in Linux distributions?"

Comments

Re:This scheme has no advantages.

[Blakey Rat]

Let's go over your list the OS X way. Noting that I'm not an expert:

1) PATH variable only applies to CLI applications. Apple solves this problem by putting CLI applications in the standard UNIX places.

2) /users/username/library/application support

3) Shared libraries cause as many problems as they solve. Modern computers aren't short on RAM or disk space and there's no need to use them.

4) /users/username/library/preferences

5) I have no clue what you're talking about on this one.

6) Bundles should be as self-sufficient as possible. The only external applications they should be calling are those that are *guaranteed* to be there.