> On 12 Oct 2019, at 13:43, Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote: > >>>>> What about `/opt/lilypond’? >>>> >>>> The location /usr/local/ is for user installations on BSD systems, >>>> there is for example /usr/local/texlive, so it seems natural. >>> >>> Well, I don't care enough to argue :-) >> >> Why not? :-) Here are some links: >> >> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html >> https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/11544/what-is-the-difference-between-opt-and-usr-local >> https://www.linuxjournal.com/magazine/pointcounterpoint-opt-vs-usrlocal > > Well, the links you give just prove my point that `/opt/lilypond' > would be a better choice than `/usr/local/lilypond' – I don't want > mpkg to install into `/usr/local/bin', `/usr/local/lib', etc. > Instead, we have a complete bundle, with a separate directory > hierarchy.
Not better necessarily, but what the standard suggests. But let’s follow it and put it into /opt/lilypond/. > Normally, the directory structure below `/usr/local' mimics `/usr'. > Having stuff like `/usr/local/texlive' is thus an exception, basically > violating FHS. Not everyone likes it; see the thread starting at > > https://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2015-September/037361.html The standard explicitly says it should not be there, but in /opt/. Also, MacPorts is in /opt/local/ but should have been in /opt/macports/, as it suggests /opt≮provider>/<package>. But on the hand, I have never seen anything installing in /opt/ besides MacPorts on MacOS. And also packages are put in /usr/local/. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel