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

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

* Steve Lamb said:

> > Why is placing third-party bianary packages in /opt a bad thing?
>     Because /opt is a duplication of an existing file structure which can
> serve the purpose more than adequately.  What people are asking me is "what is
> wrong with /opt" when I am pointing out is that there is nothing wrong with
> /usr/local, or /usr/opt with a /usr/local/opt counterpart.  I do not see the
> need of a whole new top-level directory.
As usually, you weren't listening. Somebody in this thread has said why it
is good to use /opt for third-party (usually commercial) packages:

/usr - controlled by Debian
/usr/local - controlled by *me* - a local admin
/opt - controlled by *them* - the commercial vendors

Can't you really see the difference between *local* packages and those you
cannot control (the commercial ones)? If a commercial package was compiled
with /opt in mind (it was a case with older SO, AFAIR) and you don't have
access to sources nor any way to reconfigure it to use a different tree,
then you HAVE to put it in /opt. And doing the symlink messing is pointless.


Attachment: pgpA2rbkP3SYc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: