I think what you describe for /etc/local belongs under /usr/local/etc. I would define /usr/local like you for software not managed by the package manager but built by the administrator, and /opt for software not managed by the package manager and not built by the administrator (e.g. dropbox, nomachine, vmware *.deb's packaged by third party vendors).
For local machine configuration that diverges from the package manager's defaults, do we want to define a best practice? One idea is to leave /etc in pristine form as the package manager leaves it and to use symlinks from /usr/etc or /usr/local/etc. Also, I thought the "shared" part of the definition for /usr/share refers to shared among multiple users of the local machine. The prior discussion about this seemed to assume it means exported as a network filesystem. Can we get more clarity about this? Cheers, Todd Schulman On May 14, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Christoph Anton Mittere <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi. > > > 1) One idea that could be discussed (although it's very unlikely that this > is accepted) is, whether all of the current "/*/local*" directories are > moved to it's own hierarchy below "/local". > So on would have e.g.: > /local/bin > /local/sbin > /local/usr > /local/etc > /local/var > (and their typical sub-hierarchies). > > I'm not claiming that this is necessarily better that the current schema, > especially when one wants to mount some of them read-only, or e.g. keep all > var-data in one filesystem. > But it would have the advantage, that all local stuff is clearly sorted in > its own hierarchy. > > Of course I know, that this is probably difficult to get accepted. > > > 2) The current "definition" of the "/*/local" hierarchies is quite strange > (IMHO): > "The /usr/local hierarchy is for use by the system administrator when > installing software locally." > > "locally" can have many meanings: "local on disk", "on a locally exported > network filesystem", etc. etc. > > Quite often it is simply used like this: > - any manually installed software goes to the /*/local/ hierarchies. > - any software that is package managed does not. > > I'd like to see it defined this way. > > > 3) May I suggest to add "/etc/local". > > This should be analogous to the already specified directories: > /usr/local/* > /var/local > which are intended to contain any locally installed software (which is > typically software that is not part of package management). > > "/etc/local" would contain the system wide configuration of any locally > installed software. > > > 4) "/opt/local" would be not directly related to the other directories > mentioned above. > The usage of "/opt" itself is rather fuzzy, and most distributions do to > not install any software/packages there at all. > One could argue, that anything that goes to "/opt" is somewhat local > anyway,... but it's not necessarily not-packaged. > > So I'd at least reserve the usage of "/opt/local" for "local usage". > > > > Cheers, > Chris. > _______________________________________________ > fhs-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
