On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:07, Stef Pillaert wrote:
> > Hello list,
> >
> > I noticed that the rpm-distribution of the latest vtcl wants to install
> > things in /opt, while I used /usr/local/ before. Is there a reason to
> > prefer /opt above /usr/local, or is this system-dependent (I use Redhat, so
> > mabe that's the reason)
I use Debian, which has a policy that no official packages install
anything into /usr/local, because that's where users put their own stuff.
This works out great, because almost every tarball that you download and
compile and install defaults to /usr/local.
Debian would likely put vtcl in /usr/bin, /usr/lib, etc instead of /opt. I
wouldn't be surprised (but just a guess - I haven't ever used RedHat) if
few or no official (compliant) rpm packages place anything in /usr/local.
So, if for example there wasn't an rpm at all for vtcl, /usr/local would
be exactly the place for you to place it yourself.
There are one or more efforts underway to standardize such things, such as
the Linux filesystem layout (FSSTND or something like that) and even to
standardize Linux distributions (LSB - Linux Standard Base, I think).
These have been around for quite awhile but I'm not sure of the current
status. So, you would expect that /opt would someday either be official or
discarded as practice and that all the major distributions would
eventually rearrange to be compliant.
...RickM...
_______________________________________________
vtcl-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vtcl-user
