In a message dated: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 10:35:54 EST
Benjamin Scott said:
> Ah, here you touch onto a unique problem with Linux.
>
> The reason Apache is normally installed in /usr/local on Sun, HP, SGI, and
>so on, is that it is third-party software.
Not that it's relevant, but 3rd party software under Solaris is
usually destinded for /opt if Sun has anything to say about it :)
Actually, the reason most Free/Open software goes under /usr/local
is because that is the default location of the ./configure script as
created by GNU autoconf/automake.
My point was that RH took something that had a reasonable default
like apache, and instead of doing something reasonable with it like
moving it out of /usr/local/apache and placing it in /usr/apache,
they split the entire package up so that some stuff was in /var, some
was in /etc, some was in /home (where IMO it certainly doesn't
belong), and who knows where else.
Most people who were used to apache being /usr/local/apache probably
wouldn't have cared if it were just relocated. But RH couldn't do
that. I can see their argument for where they put stuff:
apache/httpd is a user, user stuff goes in /home/<username>
apache logs a whole bunch of stuff, logs go in /var/log/<pkgname>
apache is a program, programs binaries go in /usr/bin
apache has config files, config files go in /etc/<pkgname>
However, you now have 4 locations to look for package related stuff
in. I find this separation to all those locations more inconvenient
than their reasoning probably seemed to them at the time.
> With Linux, it is *all* third-party software. If we followed your
>recommendation, /usr would be empty, and *everything* would be installed in
>/usr/local. Which rather defeats the purpose.
Well, yeah, but almost everything *is* installed in /usr, so what's
the difference. My point was not, the default location must be
strictly adhered to, my point was, the default location was a default
because it made sense, so don't go and change the default to
something entirely different that doesn't make sense. Their decision
to split packages up into 3 or more different locations makes sense
only if you're beauracratic categorizer, not if you're an admin
trying to be efficient.
> Linux distro vendors face the unique problem of having to integrate
>disparate packages into a system as if they were designed for it.
Well, not really. The majority of the software has simple (at least
in theory) to run configuration scripts. RH actually has to expend
more effort setting a whole bunch of compile time options to get this
stuff into the various locations. It would be far easier if they
just changed the --prefix variable (or equivalent) and left everything
else alone.
> This is,in theory, where things like the FHS come in, because they can say things
>like "foo" should go in "/var/data/foo" or whatever. Unfortunately, the FHS
>has been slow to solidify, and slower to be adopted. We are getting there,
>but some growing pains are inevitable.
Yeah, but you know, if they had just used some common sense to begin
with and did a survey of how people use the software, we wouldn't need
things like the FHS :)
>> I don't need/want your help.
>
> Then why do you use the distro? As Mike says, there is nothing keeping
>you from downloading and building everything from source.
Because compiling from source takes too long. If the damn package
managers/maintainers would just allow me to relocate the package,
though, I'd be eternally grateful though :)
--
Seeya,
Paul
----
God Bless America!
...we don't need to be perfect to be the best around,
and we never stop trying to be better.
Tom Clancy, The Bear and The Dragon
*****************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body.
*****************************************************************
