[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: hmm...

In message <20010724142047.F9022@hq.newdream.net>it was written:
>On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 04:41:05PM -0400, Richard Tibbetts wrote:
>> For what its worth, debian doesn't seem to really use /opt. At least
>> not for debian packages, which tend to put their stuff right in /usr.
>I do like the idea of following the freebsd (i think net and open bsd may do
>this too) convention of putting everything that's not part of base in
>/usr/local/whatever - debian tends to put stuff in /usr for the most part -
>most of the debian systems i've worked on have barely anything in /usr/local

It is in fact against debian policy for packages to place anything in /usr/local,
since it is intended for local source packages that admins install (eg anything
packaged for debian is part of the 'base system' and managed by the packaging

Relavant FHS reference:

>i suppose this confused me at first (having so much stuff in
>/usr/local/whatever) but it makes it easier to tell what stuff you've added,
>and it's easier to upgrade the base system via cvsup.

This information is contained in/managed by the packaging system which
is rather exhaustive.

>it is annoying tho when you have something that's installed locally but is
>also part of the base system (ie bind, ssh or whatever) as it's pretty hard
>(afaik) to remove a package that's part of the base system in bsd.

This is why debian makes a strict distinction between 'installed locally'
(eg from source in /usr/local) and installed from a package.

as always,
            nick@grawk.net * http://www.fargus.net/nick
    Developer - Systems Engineer - Mad System Guru - MOO Sales
    he picks up scraps of information/he's adept at adaptation
because for strangers and arrangers/constant change is here to stay

Reply to: