Joel Rees wrote: > Ric Moore wrote: > > There ya go, install the good stuff directories to /opt/<username>/ (on an > > /opt partition) and after create links to them in your new /home/<username>/ > > directory. Just don't blow up /opt by re-formating it. :) Ric > > Hasn't /opt been traditionally used for installing (as from upstream, > rather than from the package manager) packages that for some reason > need to be kept out of the stuff managed as a part of the distro? In > other words, as a kind of a /usr/local , but separate from the /usr > filesystem? Unix vendors such as HP-UX and others would use /opt for their own installations. The FHS allows it. Package managers can either manage files there or not. It is allowed. If good naming is done then there won't be any collisions. The system can manage files there with a package manager. The local user/admin can put local files there. For the local user it is somewhat like /usr/local in concept but everything must be under a top level name. This use goes back to the early days of the FHS and isn't a "traditional" Unix thing in the sense of Unix v7. This use is a newer use and continues through the current day. Debian as an organization has decided to do nothing with /opt other than to acknowledge that it is available. Debian packages will not install anything there. Other systems have their own policy. > As a suggestion for individual consideration, not trying to tell > anyone they have to do this, but, why not, as Steve Litt suggests, add > a mount point under the root directory, with a (preferably short) name > that lets you know why it's there and otherwise keeps it out of the > name spaces debian will will do its job in? > > I do this myself, something like /usbk as a mount point for a > partition with directories I use to save intermediate copies of stuff > I'm working on, including entire project source trees in some cases, > and /ussh for directories with permissions set to share with other > users. That is all good for local conventions. I personally don't feel strongly one way or the other. It is more important that things be named in such a way that they make sense and are self-documenting concerning what they are and what they are doing there. Names like user backup and user shared as you have above with usbk and ussh are good. I tend to create more rigorous processes for services such as backup and therefore put those under /srv/backup. But for example I have a /var/local mount point with a large partition there for local variable temporary "stuff" that doesn't fit anywhere else that I also don't want backed up. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature