On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Paul Lussier wrote:
>> /usr/local (and {bin,sbin} under it) is for "programs local to the site".
>> This usually means whatever software has been installed by the local
>> admin(s), separate from the distro provider.
>
> This has since lead to the debate of whether, because "site" was
> synonymous with "the single machine at the site", we should now extend
> "site" to mean each physical machine having it's own /usr/local; or, does
> "site" truly mean site, and therefore, /usr/local should truly be a
> "site-wide" filesystem, NFS mounted by each physical machine.
Ah, yes. This is a classic. It's even better then an editor flamewar,
because (at least IMO), the correct answer is "both". It is useful to have
both a "files local to the machine" and a "files local to the site" structure.
Of course, then the debate turns into a "which one is /usr/local, and what
do you call the other one?" flamewar. The argument is almost entirely
cosmetic at that point.
Personally, I favor putting files local to the machine in /usr/local, and
creating a seperate structure for the organization mounted at root. You can
then have /foo/bin, /foo/opt/matlab, /foo/home, /foo/mail, and so forth.
The reason I favor this is mainly that the site structure tends to be manually
typed more often, and therefore fewer keystrokes is a good thing. ;) But
again, it is a matter of personal preference.
> This debate is truly about pointlessly debating the semantics of the
> situation! :)
Of course! :-)
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Net Technologies, Inc. <http://www.ntisys.com>
Voice: (800)905-3049 x18 Fax: (978)499-7839
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
