LinuxQuestions.org
Support LQ: Use code LQ3 and save $3 on Domain Registration
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 10-17-2005, 01:46 PM   #1
merchtemeagle
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Slackware 13.37
Posts: 512

Rep: Reputation: 31
/usr vs /usr/local on linuxpackages.net


http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto.p...=Package+Howto says:

First we do this because if you have noticed most programs will install to /usr/local by default. We don't want this since we are going to let others use this package /usr/local is off limits basically for packages that others will be using. This is outlined in the FHS.

But I thought /usr/local is for software that is not part of the distribution? So a package like mplayer, which is not in the official slackware release, should go into /usr/local, no?
 
Old 10-17-2005, 01:57 PM   #2
Tinkster
Moderator
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: in a fallen world
Distribution: slackware by choice, others too :} ... android.
Posts: 22,977
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 879Reputation: 879Reputation: 879Reputation: 879Reputation: 879Reputation: 879Reputation: 879
Re: /usr vs /usr/local on linuxpackages.net

Quote:
Originally posted by merchtemeagle
But I thought /usr/local is for software that is not part of the distribution? So a package like mplayer, which is not in the official slackware release, should go into /usr/local, no?
Not quite ... the /usr/local comes in as a discriminating
factor when you're in a networked environment, and your
/ and/or /usr are on nfs. So /usr/local means exactly that,
that's stuff that is installed ONLY on that machine.

However, all my stuff that's compiled from source lands
there ;) ... I think of the FHS as a guide-line for the makers
of distros, and don't necessarily feel bound to adhere to
it for my private use.


Cheers,
Tink
 
Old 10-17-2005, 05:21 PM   #3
ringwraith
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana
Distribution: Slackware-current
Posts: 1,244

Rep: Reputation: 47
If I ever have to start completely over with my install, I would consider putting /usr/local on a separate partition. Then all of those extra programs that I install I would put them there. That way any time I had to do a clean install at upgrade, I would still have all of those installed on my machine. As it is, I don't plan on ever having to do that again..... (sound of knocking on wood).
 
Old 10-17-2005, 10:05 PM   #4
Woodsman
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Distribution: Slackware 14.1
Posts: 3,482

Rep: Reputation: 534Reputation: 534Reputation: 534Reputation: 534Reputation: 534Reputation: 534
Quote:
If I ever have to start completely over with my install, I would consider putting /usr/local on a separate partition.
Going back to the early 1990s I have been a fan of partitioning. In MS-DOS I had three partitions, a C:, D:, and E: partition. System stuff went on C:, applications on D:, and I used E: to store all of my data files. I continued that basic strategy into Windows. Keeping all of my data files on a separate partition has always saved me much grief, especially back in the days when I tended to tinker a lot more than I do today. I could reinstall software to my heart's content and never touch my data.

When I started tinkering with GNU/Linux a few years ago one of the first things I learned was to divide my hard disk into partitions. This saved me much time in the beginning because I was flirting with several distros and with the partition scheme I did not have to reinstall a lot of files.

Currently I save all of my custom-made bash scripts to /usr/local/bin. I also installed all of my TrueType fonts in /usr/local as well as many system event sounds (I use KDE). This partitioning scheme will save me time once again in a few weeks as I install Slack onto another box. I'll simply copy the files from usr/local and be done.

I also use a dedicated /boot partition, which allowed me to play with several kernels when I was playing with several distros. I have all of my GRUB files installed to /boot and I need only edit the one config file when adding a new kernel to test.

I use a dedicated /home partition and never have to reinstall anything there either. My /opt directory is on a separate partition and this helps when updating KDE or other third-party software.

Some people don't care for the extra up-front work with partitioning, but once one gets the hang of things the idea is one of those that simply makes sense for a lot of people. At least for me---YMMV.
 
Old 10-18-2005, 03:09 PM   #5
gnashley
Amigo developer
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,755

Rep: Reputation: 466Reputation: 466Reputation: 466Reputation: 466Reputation: 466
According to the LFSH /usr/local should be empty when a distro is delivered.
I personally feel that software that is handled by the native package management tools can also be installed under /usr, leaving /usr/local for locally COMPILED software -just as a way to keep it apart from software that uses pkgtools.
I mean that for your own computer -installing on a high-security networked box will probably mean taking other considerations into account. But I doubt that anyone with high security concerns is going to be installing packages from linuxpages.net...
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Starting httpd: /usr/sbin/httpd: symbol lookup error: /usr/local/lib/libaprutil-0.so. bijuhpd Linux - Newbie 1 10-30-2005 05:07 PM
path in services wrong for clamav updated frm 0.75 to 0.80 usr/bin vs usr/local/bin Emmanuel_uk Linux - Newbie 3 04-22-2005 01:02 AM
Installing software, /usr/lib directory and /usr/local millertime Linux - Software 2 07-10-2004 09:21 AM
Difference between /usr/ and /usr/local/ ? MDesigner Linux - Newbie 7 07-04-2004 09:37 AM
Why /usr/X11R6 before /usr/local? Griffon26 Linux - Software 2 07-18-2002 06:46 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:29 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration