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