/usr vs /usr/local
heiko at zuerker.org
Wed Feb 2 06:20:55 PST 2005
> I would like to put bhlfs stuff in /usr/local. I think /usr should only
> what is needed to rebuild the base system and reboot. I think /usr/local
> should be for everything else because the beyond-packages are always site
> specific. But I think everything should share /etc as a sysconf directory.
> I know people have opinions about this. I also see the value of having a
> to install a second version of a package. If you want two versions of gcc,
> apache, I think that's what /opt is for. Another idea is to use /usr/pkg
> bhlfs stuff. I think many of us don't like installing everything in
> because it gets messy. Installing only the base to /usr would mean we can
> partition /usr for a known amount (read-only too), and use /usr/local as
> big partition.
> Lots of pros and cons either way. How do the rest of you feel about this?
I don't like the idea.
I personally use /usr/local only when I play around with stuff, then I'm
also sure it's quite easy to get rid of it.
Keep in mind that BLFS is still a main component of the OS, which should
go into /usr (or /opt if you have to).
More information about the hlfs-dev