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

Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])

On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 01:49:41PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>     /usr is what *we* control, /usr/local is what *they* control.

Ok, let's consider Joe.  Joe works at a university where /usr/local
is a read only nfs mount.  The university supports linux, but only in
this configuration.

Or let's consider Jack.  Jack has several debian systems, and he's found
it convenient to have /usr/local be a zip drive.  He just plops his
disk into the machine he's working on and it's configured to his taste.
[Jack's wife has her own zip disk, by the way, and her tastes are
somewhat different.]

Then imagine that Joe and Jack both want to install MS Office 2020
for Linux.

In these imaginary scenarios: who is *we* and who is *they*?

> So why not something under /usr instead of a whole new top-level
> hierarchy?

You want tightly integrated under /usr?  [So we have to have a MS Office
2020 for Debian which is different from MS Office 2020 for RedHat?]

Or you just object to the spelling of "/opt"?

> I mean, personally, I prefer /ftp to /home/ftp (dumb place for /ftp,
> if you ask me) and /www as opposed to, what is it, /var/htdocs. I also
> *really* like /misc for all those miscellaneous things which are to
> big, long-standing or private to shoe-horn into /tmp.
>     However, none of those will see the light of day outside my
> system.
>     So why /opt and not /usr/opt with the possibility of
> /usr/local/opt?

/usr might be a cdrom.


Reply to: