Re: /usr/local/
From: Tim Haynes (usenet-20040329_at_stirfried.vegetable.org.uk)
Date: 03/29/04
- Next message: Charlie Gibbs: "Re: Do too many files hurt a directory?"
- Previous message: Michael Tosch: "Re: /usr/local/"
- In reply to: Michael Tosch: "Re: /usr/local/"
- Next in thread: Peter J. Acklam: "Re: /usr/local/"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:09:51 +0100
eedmit@NO.eed.SPAM.ericsson.PLS.se (Michael Tosch) writes:
> Linux (a child of the Public Domain) has decided for /usr/local,
> so it is most easy to go for /usr/local on Sun Solaris, too.
Please be accurate. Linux has no preferences for where it is installed in a
filesystem. GNU/Linux distributions increasingly adhere to the LSB and FHS
standards, meaning that each distribution's own packages install into a
reasonable combination of / and /usr, leaving the sysadmin free to use
/usr/local/ and /opt/ as they wish - normally in that order.
~Tim
-- But mountains are holy places, |piglet@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk And beauty is free / We can still walk |http://spodzone.org.uk/cesspit/ Through the garden | Our earth was once green |
- Next message: Charlie Gibbs: "Re: Do too many files hurt a directory?"
- Previous message: Michael Tosch: "Re: /usr/local/"
- In reply to: Michael Tosch: "Re: /usr/local/"
- Next in thread: Peter J. Acklam: "Re: /usr/local/"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
