> > I'm glad I'm not the only one confused by this. My _habit_ has been to > install add-on/outside/development/flaky? sorry, ;-) software in > /usr/local > but /opt is OK, too. > > My /usr/lib is rapidly becoming a compost-heap that looks a lot like > c:\windows\system > .
or may be c:\windows\system32. That where most of the messy stuff resides on Win32. Suhaib > segg wrote: > > > Scott Kruger wrote: > > > > > > "Douglas N. Arnold" wrote: > > > > 3. Finally, the RPMs are not compliant with Linux > Filesystem Hierarchy > > > > Standard (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/), concerning where > they install > > > > files. My understanding is that everything should be installed into > > > > /usr/lib/dx (rather than /usr/local/dx, /usr/dx, or /dx), > except that > > > > the executable script dx should be moved or copied into /usr/bin/dx, > > > > and the man page should be moved or copied into /usr/man/man1/dx.1. > > > > > > Actually this isn't correct. All third party software should go into > > > either /usr/local or /opt. The idea is that you can have /usr/local > > > or /opt on a separate disk partition so that when you do a > fresh install > > > which reformats the / partition space, it leaves your > /usr/local or /opt > > > directory intact - no having to reinstall all of your > software (although > > > in the case of Linux the libraries change so much you probably have to > > > anyway, but in the case of Solaris you can upgrade for years without > > > having to touch the /opt structure). > > > > > > As for whether it should be in > > > /opt or /usr/local, I've never really understood, other than that the > > > standard says that /opt should be used for "Add-on packages". Does > > > that include rpm's? I've seen many SysAdmins just soft link /opt to > > > /usr/local to avoid the whole mess. > > > > After reading this FHS 2.0 again, the choice of /opt has my preference > > for opendx home. I have the same interpretation as Scott Kruger, > > and I like tradition, plus technical advantages. > > > > Gilles J. Seguin
