The /source of the problem...or is that the /src?

[montefin <montefin@finux.com>]

Hi all,

After 6 weeks and a Slink->Potato upgrade, I've got to say I like Debian
a whole lot and am definitely going to move it on up to the big box as
soon as Potato goes stable and CD's are available...

But*, one tiny, core question remains. Which is it: /usr/src,
/usr/local/source, /usr/local/src?

I don't know, maybe it's the 16 years of Catholic School. I came to
Debian from Red Hat because I'd heard it was more 'canonical', more
'structured', closer to the 'soul' of Linux and open source. I wanted an
underlying OS that would provide an almost liturgical standard that I
could build upon, develop within, even 'commit sins' with, and still
find it as steady as a rock and willing to forgive.

Some docs and HOWTO's say to build Linux in /usr/local/source; some
mail, even from this list, mentions /usr/local/src; make-kpkg, I
believe, builds into /usr/src. Sweet 'apt-get --configure source' will
build where ever I happen to be at the moment.

I asked a well-debbed, not-to-be-named guru why this was and he told me
so that Debian could avoid interference between what it configures and
what some unknown third-party developer or I configure.

Well, here on the little test box, I chose to put the heads of all
source-trees into /usr/local/source and symlink both /usr/src and
/usr/local/src to /usr/local/source.

As I prepare to Debianize the big box, it would really help to know
either 'The Correct Way' or 'The Reason(s) Why' for this most basic,
initial, yet essential, decision. I want to start with as 'canonical' a
box as possible so that I can truly be 'free' thereupon.

So. Which is it: /usr/src, /usr/local/source, /usr/local/src or all of
the above and let the pieces fall where they may?

Thanks for whatever guidance you may send my way, and for your patience
with

montefin


*You never really know what somebody's saying until after they use the
word 'but'.