On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 10:38:14AM -0400, Jan Schaumann wrote: > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: > > > LSB compliant packages have to "adhere to the FHS 2.2". Does this > > mean they should put their files in /opt and /etc/opt? Or just that > > they can't put them in /FooCorp? If they have to put them in /opt and > > /etc/opt, should they install symlinks in /usr/bin so you can easily > > use their program? > > Hi all, > > sorry if this has been discussed before, but I really like Debian's way > of using /etc/alternatives as a place for variable symlinks. Also, as > far as I understand the FHS, "/usr/local/bin" should be the place where > to install binaries to anyway, not "/usr/bin", right? no, /usr/local is for sysadmin installed software, not packaged software. though i suppose proprietary crap falls into that catagory most of the time. > > So I'd probably suggest a package to install as follows: > > /opt/package/ > /opt/package/bin/ > /opt/package/bin/executable > /opt/etc/packagerc good > /usr/local/bin/exectuable -> /etc/alternatives/executable > /etc/alternatives/executable -> /opt/package/bin/executable why? this isn't needed. better soltution is the /opt method above, and the following addition to /etc/profile: if [ -d /opt/bin ] ; then PATH="${PATH}:/opt/bin" fi or something like that. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgp42AG3EL4bq.pgp
Description: PGP signature