Re: hmm...

[Known Human Nick Rusnov <nick@grawk.net>]

In message <20010724142047.F9022@hq.newdream.net>it was written:
>On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 04:41:05PM -0400, Richard Tibbetts wrote:
>> For what its worth, debian doesn't seem to really use /opt. At least
>> not for debian packages, which tend to put their stuff right in /usr.
>
>I do like the idea of following the freebsd (i think net and open bsd may do
>this too) convention of putting everything that's not part of base in
>/usr/local/whatever - debian tends to put stuff in /usr for the most part -
>most of the debian systems i've worked on have barely anything in /usr/local

It is in fact against debian policy for packages to place anything in /usr/local,
since it is intended for local source packages that admins install (eg anything
packaged for debian is part of the 'base system' and managed by the packaging
system).

Relavant FHS reference:
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/fhs/fhs-4.5.html

>i suppose this confused me at first (having so much stuff in
>/usr/local/whatever) but it makes it easier to tell what stuff you've added,
>and it's easier to upgrade the base system via cvsup.

This information is contained in/managed by the packaging system which
is rather exhaustive.

>it is annoying tho when you have something that's installed locally but is
>also part of the base system (ie bind, ssh or whatever) as it's pretty hard
>(afaik) to remove a package that's part of the base system in bsd.

This is why debian makes a strict distinction between 'installed locally'
(eg from source in /usr/local) and installed from a package.

as always,
nick
            nick@grawk.net * http://www.fargus.net/nick
    Developer - Systems Engineer - Mad System Guru - MOO Sales
    he picks up scraps of information/he's adept at adaptation
because for strangers and arrangers/constant change is here to stay