Essential software should not go into /usr, it should go into / (/bin, /sbin,
/lib, etc). I can boot my system without mounting /usr just fine (the only
thing not working correctly would be sound, I think), I just can't do much
non sysadmin work, that's all. But then again, if you can't mount /usr then
you ought not be doing much more than sysadmin work until /usr can mount,
And lo, the chronicles report that Robert W. Current spake thusly unto the masses:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 06:54:07AM -0800, Robert W. Current wrote:
> >> Linux was once fairly complete at 10M, now it's easily 500M in /usr,
> >> and nothing in /usr/local or /opt. That's starting to get rediculus.
> >> The OS is not 500M... That's the issue. So, why is there 500+M of
> >> crap in /usr/bin?
> >Why would it be better to have 500M in /opt? That's the sticking point.
> >You're saying that you don't want a standard that allows distributions
> >to put things in /usr, and I'm saying that there are distributions that
> >want to do things that way. Can you offer a reasoned argument to support
> >why your way is right and the other way is wrong?
> Sure, /opt is fine for 500M, so is /usr/local
> if /opt and /usr/local are unmounted, distroyed, or corrupt, one should
> expect the OS itself to remain intact. The OS itself should be isolated
> from what non-essential software does during it's install, removal, and
> Logic seems clear (to me) that keeping essentials in /usr/bin and
> non-essentials in /usr/local/bin or /opt keeps things cleaner, more
> logical, and more functional.
> FHS states that "added software" should not go in "/usr/bin"
What is "added software"? FHS was not developed with LSB in mind. I see
"added software" as software the sysadmin added by hand (or via 3rd party
packages, etc). "System software" is software which is distributed as part
of the OS you got, from whatever vendor; part of the main installation. Red
Hat ships with alot of things I elected not to install and am just fine for
choosing not to, but these are not "added software". Downloading gnapster
and installing it myself is "added software", IMHO.
> The issue boils down to this debate to me:
> If Red Hat Packages it, does that mean it's "part of the base" or is it
> just "added software" done by a distributer rather than the user. What
> happens when a user adds more .rpms?
The way I do it, if Red Hat packages it, i consider it part of the OS. If
someone else packages it, or I install it from a tarball, it's "added software."
The idea being that when I get the next version of Red Hat, it may upgrade
anything Red Hat has packaged. But the stuff I installed seperately will
not, and should not, be upgraded during a system install. FHS actually
covers this in its discussion of /usr/local.
> This is why I think it should be in /usr/local or /opt, not
> /usr/bin... Just because it's "a distribution" doesn't mean it's not
> "additional software beyond the base"
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email firstname.lastname@example.org
icy_manipulator @ mindless.com
"The fool finds ignorance all around him. The wise man finds ignorance within."
Use of any of my email addresses is subject to the terms found at
http://www.rit.edu/~adg1653/email.shtml. By using any of my addresses, you
agree to be bound by the terms therein.
- RE: RFC
- From: "Robert W. Current" <email@example.com>