Re: File Systems.
"Robert W. Current" wrote:
>
> I also thought that this was done long ago, but there is a potential
> problem in using /opt that could be addressed by applying the structure
> of /usr to /opt.
>
> FHS doesn't seem to specify a suggested structure in /opt, and for the
> sake of editing a users paths for applications in /opt, it would nice to
> suggest they use a /opt/bin, /opt/var, etc.. type structure. Common use
> of /opt has been to put application names in the path (/opt/kde/bin,
> /opt/staroffice/bin, /opt/wp/bin), which can get messy. Moving to /opt
> without a structure for /opt would cause more confusion than benefit.
>
> That's just a suggestion, IMO it might help, but it's a matter for FHS
> to discuss first, then the LSB choose to accept or ignore. (But, the
> FHS site doesn't have a link to the FHS discussion forum, anyone know
> it?)
>
Actually, since the *only* reason for /opt is to break up installed
software in manageable pieces, /opt/<package> is definitely to be
recommended. However, putting symlinks in /opt/bin, /opt/lib et al is
good practice.
For packages too small to bother, /usr is just as well.
-hpa
Reply to: