The /usr versus the /usr/local debate
jwr4027 at hotmail.com
Tue Dec 3 13:42:13 PST 2002
I sent this message to both blfs-book at blfs-dev. Wasn't sure which was
the right one.
I am reading the BLFS 20021027 book. I am on the section concerning the
/usr vs /usr/local debate. I wonder if anyone thought about /opt?
The FHS at http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/ states that "/opt is reserved
for the installation of add-on application software packages".
It also states that "/usr is shareable, read-only data. That means that
/usr should be shareable between various FHS-compliant hosts and must not
be written to. Any information that is host-specific or varies with time is
And finally "The /usr/local hierarchy is for use by the system
administrator when installing software locally. It needs to be safe from
being overwritten when the system software is updated. It may be used for
programs and data that are shareable amongst a group of hosts, but not
found in /usr."
So...going along with this, I think it would be better to put local
software on /opt that is ONLY for the local system. /usr/local can be for
a NFS share or something that is the same across a site.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-book' in the subject header of the message
More information about the blfs-book