On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 10:52:23PM +0000, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > 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".
i have been doing this for years on my machines, because i always found it irritating that mounting local would depend on mounting /usr first. it seems cleaner to me to have all mounts go into directories in / just like /opt (why is that not /usr/opt?) of course if /usr is not a seperate mountpoint then this becomes moot. (it is more important to have /local (or /usr/local) as a seperate mountpoint, because it is not under packet management control, like opt. > 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. the same is true for /opt > So I'd at least reserve the usage of "/opt/local" for "local usage". why? anything you'd want to put in /opt/local you should just put in /local i see 3 ways to install packages: package manager: goes whereever the package defines it. hopefully /usr source: goes whereever the admin defines it. defaults to /usr/local 3rd-party installer: goes whereever the installer defines it. hopefully /opt greetings, martin. -- cooperative communication with sTeam - caudium, pike, roxen and unix services: debugging, programming, training, linux sysadmin, web development -- pike programmer working in china community.gotpike.org foresight developer (open-steam|caudium).org foresightlinux.org unix sysadmin iaeste.at realss.com Martin Bähr http://www.iaeste.at/~mbaehr/ is.schon.org _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
