The /usr versus the /usr/local debate
jwr4027 at hotmail.com
Tue Dec 3 13:57:00 PST 2002
James Robertson wrote:
> Hello All,
> 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 stored elsewhere."
> 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.
> Any idea/comments?
Sorry - ignore this - it doesn't go here!
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