On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 06:00:50PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > I already have trouble enough understanding why we currently have both > /usr/local and /opt. Both appear to be places for 3rd party software, > but use different layouts.
the difference in layouts is exactly the point why both exists. /opt is for those who do not follow the layout required for /usr/local, like for applications only available in binary that can not be adapted to the /usr/local layout by the sysadmin, or for applications ported to unix/linux where the developers can't be bothered to adapt the layout. my personal rule of thumb is: /usr/local for stuff built from source, /opt for 3rd party stuff only available as binary. as a practical consideration i usually link /opt to /usr/local/opt because i don't want them in the root partition, but in the local partition for backup and restore reasons. (/ and /usr can easely be restored by reinstalling, but /usr/local and /opt can't) greetings, martin. -- cooperative communication with sTeam - caudium, pike, roxen and unix services: debugging, programming, training, linux sysadmin, web development -- pike programmer working in china community.gotpike.org foresight developer (open-steam|caudium).org foresightlinux.org unix sysadmin iaeste.at realss.com Martin Bähr http://www.iaeste.at/~mbaehr/ is.schon.org _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
