On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 17:23:47 +0200, Michael Grünewald <michaelgrunew...@yahoo.fr> wrote: > Dear FreeBSD users, > > > today I come to you with what seems to be somehow pedantic question: > where is the best place to install libraries of shell functions.
Depends. Are you interested in shell functions you install from a port / package, or your own shell functions? > I read hier(4) carefully and it seems the correct place for this would > be somewhere under `/usr/local/share': > > share/ architecture-independent files This structure usually serves the purpose of /usr/share, but for software installed by ports or packages, as the /usr/local/ subtree "duplicates" the system's structures in many cases. > On the base systems, many macros (make templates and groff macros) are > actually installed under /usr/share. However, the only library of shell > functions I am aware of is `/etc/rc.subr', that landed on this funny > location, probably to be pretty sure that this library is on the same > filesystem as the scripts under /etc/rc.d. I guess that's the intention behind this decision. You'll see that many things on FreeBSD are determined by a well- intended thought, rather than an arbitrary "Oh, why don't we just put it ... *throw a dice* ... here?" > Several of the ports install shell scripts under `/usr/local/lib' that > hier(4) devotes to ``shared and archive ar(1)-type libraries''. These > shell scripts are: > > > find /usr/local/lib -name '*.sh' > /usr/local/lib/tk8.5/tkConfig.sh > /usr/local/lib/seamonkey/run-mozilla.sh > /usr/local/lib/libxul/run-mozilla.sh > /usr/local/lib/rpm/convertrpmrc.sh > /usr/local/lib/rpm/find-lang.sh > /usr/local/lib/rpm/getpo.sh > /usr/local/lib/rpm/u_pkg.sh > /usr/local/lib/rpm/vpkg-provides.sh > /usr/local/lib/rpm/vpkg-provides2.sh > /usr/local/lib/firefox/run-mozilla.sh > /usr/local/lib/tcl8.5/tclConfig.sh > /usr/local/lib/thunderbird/run-mozilla.sh > /usr/local/lib/llvm-gcc-2.8/gcc/x86_64-portbld-freebsd8.2/4.2.1/install-tools/fixinc.sh > > Two files (the `/usr/local/lib/tcl8.5/tclConfig.sh' one and the > `s/tcl/tk/g' one) are actually shell script libraries (defining a bunch > of variables), and all the others are ancillary scripts, that would > maybe better fit in `/usr/local/libexec'. It depends on where the respective port maintainer want to have them. > So, practical experience does not really second my a priori that these > files sould go under the `share' hierarchy and I would like to have your > opinion on this question. Many software is ported from Linux, so their structures, or sometimes the lack of, is applied. For example, I put _my_ stuff that is NOT managed by ports and definitely does NOT belong to the system into an /opt subtree, a Solaris-ism I'm "abusing": /opt/bin is in $PATH, so anything system-wide executable is located there, and /opt/share does contain non-executable shell scripts (e. g. those with helper functionalities) or files with settings (that are sourced by something else) - things that usually are not called directly. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"