Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!portc01.blue.aol.com!cliffs.rs.itd.umich.edu!howland.erols.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.unt.edu!replicant.csci.unt.edu!jackson From: jackson@replicant.csci.unt.edu (Bruce Jackson) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Where to put packages *not* from FreeBSD ? Date: 29 Dec 1996 18:17:31 GMT Organization: University of North Texas, Denton Lines: 70 Message-ID: <5a6cjr$ghc@hermes.acs.unt.edu> References: <stanbE2z02s.BIK@netcom.com> <59rvb3$1nm@klemm.gtn.com> <5a4t9e$5b2@nr1.vancouver.istar.net> <stanbE36GJD.2GL@netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: replicant.csci.unt.edu Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:33105 In article <stanbE36GJD.2GL@netcom.com>, Stan Brown <stanb@netcom.com> wrote: > This discussion has drifted far wide of the original question (which > I posted) and I still have not seen an answer to the original > question, so let me try again. Since FreeBSD puts things in > .usr/loal, where should I putpackages that I wish to aintain > *seperatly* from FreebSD. That is without any risk that any > upgrading of FreeBSD (Binary or sourc via make worl) will mess with > it? This is more of a philosophical question than a technical one. Over the years running a lot of systems directories were added in an ad hoc manner and when things began to get really ugly people would cry for restoring sanity to our directory structure. We found ourselves with multiple versions of a lot of software that different groups were dependent on so we had a lot of different trees. > Also what determines if FreeBSD puts the package in /usr/local (as > opposed to say /bin or /usr/bin)? There are a few technical reasons why some things are installed in /bin vs. /usr/bin since /usr is often on a different filesystem and not available until /usr is mounted. Everything else is a matter of taste. A directory structure I like is: /usr/gnu /usr/tex /usr/misc /usr/test /usr/X11R6 An advantage to this is that users can PATH and MANPATH the directories of software they use and avoid the ones they don't. Someone who doesn't use tex probably wouldn't want the manpages for it to be listed when they do a "man -k format" I've never liked throwing all the local software in /usr/local. Now that some directory trees like gnu and tex get so large they really deserve to be segregated. One problem with this is that locally installed X11 applications go into the default /usr/X11R6 directory so they have to be saved when you upgrade. To avoid problems you could choose something like: /usr/local/gnu /usr/local/tex /usr/local/misc /usr/local/test /usr/local/X11 This structure is consistent and allows local X software to be installed in a directory different from where the system puts things. With this, another advantage is the you can still dump /usr/local to archive all of the local additions. Another structure to consider is /opt ala Solaris 2. With this we would have something like: /opt/gnu /opt/tex /opt/test ... I do like this structure but so far most of the people I talk to feel that /opt should be reserved for commercial software and locally written or supported software should go elsewhere. Since FreeBSD does not use /opt at all this hierarchy would be perfectly safe from collisions from future FreeBSD upgrades though. -- Bruce Jackson b.a.jackson@ieee.org http://replicant.csci.unt.edu/~jackson/