Re: FHS question

From: Bob Proulx (bob_at_proulx.com)
Date: 08/11/03

  • Next message: Johann Koenig: "Re: rcS directory"
    Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:35:29 -0600
    To: Debian User <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
    
    
    

    Tom Allison wrote:
    > Colin Watson wrote:
    > >Tom Allison wrote:
    > >>FHS says that this directory is for "binaries not needed in single user
    > >>mode".
    > >>But then I went over and looked at the /opt which also seemed rather
    > >>reasonable as a place to put things.

    Those are definitely six of one and a half-dozen of the other types of
    locations. Either *could* world. A judgement call was made and one
    or the other picked. Different distributions or commercial vendors
    made that choice differently. Commercial vendors tend to like to put
    optional components into /opt. But I have also seen then put
    non-optional software there too. Nobody is perfect and I think those
    have been bugs but so it goes.

    > Wouldn't it be possible to utilize /opt for big packages (open office,
    > mozilla, KDE, Gnome, Java) and still leave /opt for system administrators?

    Using /opt means one of a) adjusting PATH to include the /opt/pkg/bin
    dirctory or b) putting symlinks to /opt/bin and having /opt/bin always
    added to path or c) putting symlinks into /usr/bin pointing to there.
    There is no easy way to deal with PATH and putting packages into /opt.
    HP-UX tries to do option a) and I have quite a bit of experience with
    it and there are problems doing it that way.

    Option a) is bad because it means you need to reset your PATH after
    doing software package installation or removal. Option b) creates
    more complexity and has yet to be widely implemented. Option c) is
    basically the same as putting it in /usr/bin. Seems the simplest
    solution is just to put it in /usr/bin and handle all of the issues by
    using the system package manager.

    > I kind of like the idea of putting what you need for the basics in /usr and
    > the cool applications in /opt and spread it around a little bit.

    The FHS can't really say not to put things in /opt because that would
    cut out many of the commercial vendors. So they allow it and both the
    system and the admin can do what they want in /opt. That leaves two
    choice points. The system and the admin. Either could use it.

    You as the admin are free to install software in /opt. There has been
    some discussion that putting non-free software, which definitely is not
    part of Debian, there by the local admin might make a lot of sense.
    It would stand out that it is an add-on to the system and not part of
    Debian and that bug reports should not go to Debian for that software
    either.

    This looks to overlap with /usr/local. You as the local admin are
    free to install software there too. So why have two? /opt does have
    a use. /usr/local needs to be backed up but /opt does not need to be
    backed up on my site. I install local non-free software to /opt using
    the package manager which obviously I can reinstall again if I needed
    to. But /usr/local might have non-packaged, hand tweaked files. That
    needs to be backed up. But on my site /opt does not need to be backed
    up. It only contains packaged non-free software which can be
    installed again. No need to put that on the backup. Which makes a
    nice use model that is easy to differentiate for everyone.

    > I guess there's really no valid reason for going one way or the other but
    > that it's more important to have an agreed to schema when setting up files.

    Agreed. Debian Policy is the preexisting agreement in Debian for
    where things go. But there is also a lot of flexibility there too.
    You can make local policy decisions such as I have done and still fit
    seamlessly into the grander scheme of things.

    Bob

    
    

    -- 
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
    


  • Next message: Johann Koenig: "Re: rcS directory"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: the best Linux for me
      ... I've ben using debian on my desktop for about 8 years, ... What's Debian's package / distro system called? ... cl-clx-sbcl - An X11 Common Lisp client library for SBCL ... You can also see how out of date my unstable install ...
      (comp.lang.lisp)
    • Re: Code correctness, and testing strategies
      ... automate the testing a bit more. ... the shell scripts & control files work correctly, that the debian ... package had all the files in the correct places etc). ... Install the package under a chroot ...
      (comp.lang.python)
    • Re: Best Linux version to port from OpenServer 5.0.5/6
      ... 5.0.5/6, to Linux. ... > something that doesn install aload of crap you don't need... ... > The package management allows easy installs of packages ... Debian will never die!,See ...
      (comp.unix.sco.misc)
    • Re: freedom of debian
      ... While Debian does have a great package management system. ... do is install the stable version of some package on Debian Stable, ... software is packaged linked to the newer libraries. ...
      (Debian-User)
    • Re: Help, OSX vs Linux
      ... > email/webserver from RedHat 9 to Debian. ... The previous admin had ... and all the RedHat GUI server management tools. ... is to do a "kitchen sink" RH install. ...
      (Debian-User)