From: pgr@prg.ox.ac.uk (Partially Grown Rhododendron) Subject: Re: No /usr/local please (Re: Help: Need TeX/LaTeX linked with jump table 4.1) Date: 21 Sep 1992 06:07:06 GMT
In <1992Sep21.025702.1939@serval.net.wsu.edu>, H.J. Lu <hlu@eecs.wsu.edu>
writes:
> What is the definition of 'system utility'? For my system, TeX, groff and
> X11R5, ... are system utilities to me.
No, they are utilities to you. By definition, `system utilities'
are things needed by the system. Ok, so what is needed by the system?
The `system utilities' are everything which is needed to make sure that
programs that expect a Unix machine can run. This includes cat, etc.
*Tradtionally* programs have been able to rely on nroff (or replacement)
to exist in /usr/bin (or some such)... hence, you probably need to keep
to that assumption.
Its an artificial distinction, I admit. Most distinctions are. Its
just one that I believe should be kept.
> As for other systems, I didn't see any Unices
> put their corresponding stuffs of TeX, groff and X in /usr/local. Linux
> just uses their suprior replacements which happen to be in places other
> than /usr/bin or /bin under those Unices.
Well, TeX and X aren't really replacements for *anything* as far as I
can see; they are new packages... (btw, most systems that I know of *do*
put TeX, groff, and X in /usr/local ... mainly because that is the place
that by default they will put themselves...).
> I know /usr/bin and /bin are crowded. We may need another place to put
> those utilities. How about /usr/pkg or /pkg? I don't think /usr/local makes
> sense to Linux. We should put those replacements where they belong.
Why create another arbitrary directory which is completely unique to
Linux, and will require that all code that is compiled will have to
be modified in order to compile? Seems pointless to me. According to
current Unix wisdom, they `belong' in /usr/local (this is based on the
assumption that the people writing the package know where they want them
to be...)
phil richards