From: w9ya (terhi.victor@logonet.com)
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 21:22:51 EEST
On Tuesday 27 August 2002 10:36 pm, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:50:31AM +0000, w9ya wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 August 2002 12:05 pm, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> That's right - I don't think what I said conflicts with this. Anything
> you install yourself should go into /usr/local. The vendor (Sun, Red
> Hat, Debian etc) can overwrite anything except /usr/local. Debian also
> leaves all of /opt for the local administrator.
>
> Hamish
Well , if "install youself" means from a tarball AND un-tracked by the package
manager, then EITHER /opt OR /usr/local is advised. I would almost NEVER pick
/usr/local though as there are NO rules for that heirarchy and there ARE
rules in the FHS for programs installing in /opt. The rules for /opt allow
for un-problematic removals and upgrades for what is installed there. The
same cannot be said for the /usr/local, which is why almost everyone regards
it as "depreciated".
Bob
w9ya
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hams" in
the body of a message to lqeim@gpsnet.ro
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Aug 28 2002 - 02:13:50 EEST