Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!
From: Igor Sobrado (igor_at_no-spam.on.the.net)
Date: 12/30/04
- Previous message: fcfubbjk_at_freedvd.com: "Hot 22 Year Old Looking For Love Or More.....Please Contact Me.......... OIW5"
- In reply to: nabis: "Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 30 Dec 2004 10:26:50 +0100
nabis <nabis@nomail.net> wrote:
> Either like it or not, but people are still compiling software from
> source and writing little scripts and utilities for their own use.
> /usr/pkg and /usr/contrib don't reflect this purpose.
I agree with you. I have a lot of small scripts and C utilities
that I wrote in the last years for making local tasks. I hope
that this tradition will continue in the next years.
> Most of the configure scripts specify as the PREFIX the /usr/local
> directory, it is universally accepted (Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD).
> It does not make sence to remove it just to be different. Please put
> it back for us "local Yokos" :)
GNU autoconf defaults to /usr/local because software needs a
directory to be installed, and /usr/local is as good as other
directories. But it does not means that /usr/local is *the right
home directory* on any system:
1. SVr4.x uses /opt/<vendor>/{bin,lib,...} instead for those
optional software packages (not only the ones that are not
installed by default, but any optional software package
required to work with that machine).
2. NetBSD uses /usr/pkg
3. Other Berkeley Unix based systems use /usr/local, though.
But I agree with you, /usr/local should be used for software
(e.g., utilities) developed "local"ly. :-)
Best regards,
Igor
- Previous message: fcfubbjk_at_freedvd.com: "Hot 22 Year Old Looking For Love Or More.....Please Contact Me.......... OIW5"
- In reply to: nabis: "Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
