Re: [forward] FHS pre-2.1 draft #3 on web site
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 02:25:55AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 05:14:28PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > > This draft includes the recently discussed additions to /opt.
> >
> > Debian does not use /opt; we reserve it for third parties and end
> > users.
[...]
> If I am not smoking something potent, what would be the purpose of both
> /opt/bin and /usr/local/bin? Compatibility provided to prevent breaking
> things unexpectedly ? Why not just suggest one should be linked to the
> other? (Most people do that already I think--I used to but I've since
> given /opt its own partition)
some commercial applications like their things to be put in
/opt/<application>. I can see where it might be nice to have /usr/local be
local to the sysadmin, or local to the site, etc, whereas /opt is a bit more
local to the program. My personal feelings are: /usr/local is *my* sandbox.
Nothing should touch it, unless I want it to. If that means commercial folks
put their toys in /opt, all the better.
/opt seems more for the larger packages that would not integrate so well
with the default install of whatever OS it is. KDE, if installed from
source, would work nicely in /opt. If it comes on the CDs though, putting
their bins the same place as everyone else's makes sense.
I suppose it is all a matter of taste.
:)
--
Seth Arnold | http://www.willamette.edu/~sarnold/
Hate spam? See http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ for help
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into
your ~/.signature to help me spread!
Reply to: