From: matthew@psych.psy.uq.oz.au (Matthew McDonald) Subject: Re: No /usr/local please (Would you please Shut Up?) Date: 21 Sep 1992 08:30:39 GMT
This is getting boring ...
phil richards writes:
> 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.
Well, its a bit late to whine about it now. The standards people
decided this a long time ago. If you were around then, you should have
taken part in the discussion. If you weren't around at the time - tough
luck - you're too late.
> > 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...).
The reason TeX et al go in /usr/local is to keep the locally
installed stuff *separate* *from* *the* *stuff* *that* *was* *paid* *for*.
If I re-install the basic utilities on a Unix box, the installation
is likely to throw out the old copies of /bin and /usr/bin. If TeX is
installed in bin, out it goes too ...
/usr/local is basically just somewhere TeX is relatively safe from
being overwritten during upgrades. Understand?
>
> > 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?
^^^^
This sentence not parse. I have no idea what you were trying to say.
> 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...)
The people writing the package don't stick it in /bin because they
know that install procedures are liable to trash it during upgrades. Not
because that's where it "belongs."
It's really not that difficult to deal with.
On the subject of where to put TeX, and X, why not /usr/Tex,
/usr/X etc? It seems a bit silly to put them in /bin or /usr bin
because of the size of those directories already. /usr/local is
probably out. And /usr/TeX seems aesthetically pleasing ...
Of course if you did that, you'd have long PATHs (or lots of
shambolic links in /bin), but long PATHs shouldn't cause any problems - surely.
Sorry for the flame but I'm pissed off at all the people who feel
they really gotta explain to everyone how to set up a a Unix clone.
(That and no sleep in 48 hours...)
=-=-
Matthew McDonald matthew@psych.psy.uq.oz.au
Kill the Lawyers. Boycott AT&T.