[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: /usr/local/lib in ld.so.conf



On 6 Feb 2003, Ezra Nugroho wrote:

> Thanks for the explanation. 
> It's interesting though that the default prefix for most software
> packages are /usr/local instead of /usr

Yes, there were some great flamewars _many_ years ago about package 
placement.  Back then admins. for commercial UNIX systems were a 
bit horrified by the new linux upstarts putting stuff like gs, latex,
etc. in /usr.  Of course, there WAS no support for open source software
from the *nix vendors, and so many of us in the trenches maintained
complex /usr/local/ trees.  The default was always to put self-compiled
software in /usr/local/

I learned to like it.  For me there always was a clear separation between
vendor-supplied software, and do-it-yourself software.  There still is 
today.  But the linux distributors support OSS -- so their software
is in the traditional supported trees (/usr et al.), and my compiled 
stuff is still in /usr/local/

In short, it is historic.  But to me it is also sensible.

Note also that you can keep your /usr/local/ tree around between
installs or upgrades (by doing backups/restores, symlinking
off-partition, etc)..  something that you emphatically cannot do if
you pollute the vendor trees by copying files all over the filesystem..

 cheers,
  denice
-- 
denice.deatrich @ epfl.ch, DSC / LTHC-LTHI, E.P.F.L.   PH: +41 (21) 693 76 67
<*> This moment's fortune cookie:
What's a cult?  It just means not enough people to make a minority.
		-- Robert Altman





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]