From: w9ya (terhi.victor@logonet.com)
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 12:50:31 EEST
On Tuesday 27 August 2002 12:05 pm, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 09:47:08PM +0000, w9ya wrote:
> > As far as I can tell, /usr/local has been "depreciated" into the
> > "old-timers" pile. It is not a useful directory for this according to the
> > FHS and LSB.
>
> The distributions (Red Hat, Debian, SuSE, Mandrake etc) shouldn't put
> anything in /usr/local, but if you are installing something outside of
> the packaging system then /usr/local is the recommended place.
>
> Hamish
Yes, and no. If your packaging system installs source, then it shouldn't go
into ./usr/local. The quote above was followed by another paragraph in the
original message that specifically indicated this.
Historically /usr/local was a way for Sun to not have user installed software
conflict with the "authorized" software and upgrades that Sun was
distributing with their *nix boxes. It solved a problem for them in that
Sun's files weren't being overwitten (or worse) any longer and allowed their
users to continue installing software. HP had a somehwt similar convention in
the way they used /opt.
Curiously, the FHS document;
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-4.9.html#FN23
mentions that the purpose of /usr/local is to protect the "locally installed"
software "from being overwritten". (The document uses the word "safe".)
Bob
w9ya
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hams" in
the body of a message to vfsrwamd@rcn.net
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Aug 27 2002 - 17:41:29 EEST