BLFS use of /opt

Richard Lightman richard at nezumi.plus.com
Mon Oct 7 00:03:30 PDT 2002


* dagmar at speakeasy.net <dagmar at speakeasy.net> [2002-10-07 07:34]:
> On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Richard Lightman wrote:
> 
> > * Tushar Teredesai <tush at yahoo.com> [2002-10-06 16:04]:
> > >
> > > The problem with putting packages in /opt is that many things may need
> > > to be changed - path, library path, manpath, infopath, path for pkgconfig.
> > >
> > There is supposed to be /opt/bin, which is full of links to things in
> > /opt/kde/bin, /opt/gnome/bin, ...
> >
> > The same sort of thing should happen for /opt/lib, /opt/man,
> > opt/info, ...
> >
> > This way you should only have to add opt once for each thing like path,
> > instead of adding one entry for each package in path.
> 
> This sound even more hideous than the problem of having a long PATH
> declaration.  A directory full of symlinks?  Why not just symlink all of
> /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin in there while you're at it and do away with
> PATH statements for lusers entirely?
> 
/usr/bin is just one directory, so it is not that much effort to add it
to the path. Adding /usr/local/pspell/bin, /usr/local/postgresql/bin,
/usr/local/openjade/bin and all the others would just be silly.

/usr/local is supposed to work the same way as I described as /opt.

It does not take much effort to create the symlinks:

cd /opt/bin; cp -s ../package/bin/* .


If you delete package, you can remove the broken links with:

cd /opt/bin; for i in *; do [ -a "$i" ] || rm "$i"; done


I use this method for deciding if something belongs in /opt:
If it is less hassle to put a package in /opt/package than in /usr
then it goes in /opt/package.

Richard
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list