"Ted Goodridge, Jr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > /opt is bad because it's contents are not supposed to be dependent > > on anything else. /usr/local is bad because it's meant for > > non-distribution packages. > > I'm curious...why is it so much of a problem to put it in > /usr/local?
<url: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-4.9.html > > I am not that familiar with FHS or LSB, so please forgive me if > this sounds totally nuts. well, then read the FHS. :-) > On my openbsd machine, they have decided /usr/local is for anything > that is "not essential to the base system." To their way of > thinking, anything besides the base system (perl, libs, ssh, etc) is > considered a "non-distribution package." that's OpenBSD. not Linux. personally I find it totally broken that they separate out their ports tree as something other than "system software". this is why we have /usr. this is of course also annoying since your basesystem is _not_ maintained via ports. how then do you do the equivalent of "emerge --update glibc"? anyhow, the issue is more the definition of "local" software. OpenBSD uses the term as "stuff installed apart from the core stuff we deem that you have to have". Linux defines "local" as "whatever the sysadmin installs apart from what the distribution provides". for Gentoo this is even more true than ever. the question then comes of course, where do you install your local software on OpenBSD? /local? which by the way is not defined in the hier (7) manpage of OpenBSD. and if you use /usr/local, what happens if you install a port that has files that collide with what you've installed on your own? > Why do KDE or GNOME _not_ fall into this category? that's nowhere near the point. KDE and Gnome are installed by a packager coming with the distribution. that makes /usr/local a big no-no. -- Terje -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
