|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

iff you accept /* -> /usr/*, then why not instead /usr/* -> /*

iff you accept /* -> /usr/*, then why not instead /usr/* -> /*

Posted Mar 1, 2012 8:00 UTC (Thu) by filteredperception (guest, #5692)
In reply to: iff you accept /* -> /usr/*, then why not instead /usr/* -> /* by filteredperception
Parent article: Various notes on /usr unification

replying to self after reading parent explanation more closely. I guess I understand better the shared vs machine-specific aspect as you enumerated/described. Though given the linking of /bin(actual) to /usr/bin (as opposed to symlinks for each content file/binary), would mean that if I understand correctly, that now there _is no non-shared/machine-specific_ place to put a 'binary' (i.e. under /bin in the old-way/your-explanation). In which case our question remains valid. (I think, still ducking). Or rather, you could say- under /usr/local, in which case I would go back to, why not /local.


to post comments

/local vs /usr/local

Posted Mar 1, 2012 18:25 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]

I think something like /local for code that is specific to an individual machine makes sense. Of course, software that's specific to an individual machine is probably being handled outside the distribution, or it would go wherever the distro decides it belongs. That makes dealing with it a local policy issue, so you're free to name and deal with it however you see fit.


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds