/usr vs /usr/local

Archaic archaic at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Feb 2 06:17:24 PST 2005


On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 08:36:36AM -0500, Robert Connolly wrote:
> 
> I think /usr/local should be for everything else because the
> beyond-packages are always site specific.

Quite a valid scheme. However, as I read the FHS, the purpose of
/usr/local is for locally installed programs. I may be reading too much
into that, but locally installed seems to mean not part of the main
operating system. For instance, if you added something to a distro, you
would put it in /usr/local. The book is like the distro, IMO. Anything
that is installed in the book as a core component (as chosen by the
reader) and should be in /usr and additions to that not in the book
should be in /usr/local.

> Another idea is to use /usr/pkg for bhlfs stuff.

That is a BSD heirarchy. FHS is quite explicit about not adding dirs to
/usr.

> Installing only the base to /usr would mean we can partition /usr for
> a known amount (read-only too), and use /usr/local as the big
> partition.

/usr can be read-only with or without /usr/local in use. In fact,
everything except /var and /home can be read-only, though that requires
a few tweaks here and there to avoid hassle doing administrative tasks.

-- 
Archaic

Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs




More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list