🚀 go-pugleaf

I like this proposal.  If you substitute the word "program" with
"package", the intention becomes clearer.  For example, both the
"emacs" package and the "binutils" package consist of many programs.

It is worth noticing, that SVR4 uses a similar naming scheme for
unbundled or optional packages.  All unbundled packages are placed in
/opt/<name>, where <name> is the name of the package.  It is suggested
that the packages use the traditional Unix names for directories below
the /opt/<name> directory, i.e. /opt/<name>/{bin,lib,src,man,doc,etc}.

SVR4 also has a /var/opt/<name> directory for files which can be
changed, and a /etc/opt/<name> for files which must be available on
the local machine.  This allows you to remote mount the /opt directory
read only.

While SVR4 compatibility is not a GNU goal, I believe that using an
existing naming scheme is better than inventing a new one.