>Be clear that replacing /usr/local with a symlink in the form you describe is 
>*not* compliant with the FSH. 

Actually it is, in both FHS version 2.3 and version 3.0.

http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s02.html

The following directories, or symbolic links to directories, are required in 
/usr.
Directory       Description
bin     Most user commands
lib     Libraries
local   Local hierarchy (empty after main installation)
sbin    Non-vital system binaries
share   Architecture-independent data

Benjamin Lefoul

________________________________________
From: owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov 
[owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov] On Behalf Of Nico Kadel-Garcia 
[nka...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 1:38 AM
To: Steve Gaarder
Cc: SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@FNAL.GOV
Subject: Re: Filesystem package messes with /usr/local

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Steve Gaarder <gaar...@math.cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
>> The /usr/local/ directories are part of the File System Hierarchy, at
>> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRLOCALLOCALHIERARCHY
>>
>> So, yes, it looks like upstream is following the File System
>> Hierarchy. To play nicely with it, you should ideally, replace the
>> subdirectories in /usr/local/ with individual symlinks.
>>
> They *are* symlinks, but symlinks to a read-only area in AFS space.
>
> Looking at the filesystem RPM, it assumes that it may be the first thing
> being installed in a new system, and (re)creates the basic file system
> structure.  It seems ok with the symlink, but blows up when it can't chmod
> it.

Earlier, you said:

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Steve Gaarder <gaar...@math.cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> I always thought that /usr/local was defined to be an area left alone by the
> operating system. For many years, we have made it a symlink to a read-only
> directory in AFS space. This has worked fine - until now. When I tried to

A symlink form /usr/local to a read-only AFS space is *not* the same
thing as symlinks for /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/etc,
/usr/local/share, /usr/local/lib, etc. Be clear that replacing
/usr/local with a symlink in the form you describe is *not* compliant
with the FSH. Not that it's not useful in your environment, but just
so you appreciate that you may have issues with core packages such as
the "filesystem" package.

Reply via email to