/usr/local vs. /opt

[James Wilkinson]

David Mackintosh wrote:
> We've gone through several iterations here.  If the software is going
> to be used by multiple machines, I put it in /usr/local because my
> /usr/local tree is nfs-shared across my network.  (Yes, I'm grimly
> aware of a non-local 'local' directory.)

It *is* local. It's *site*-local.

The File Hierarchy Standard says:
    The /usr/local hierarchy is for use by the system administrator when
    installing software locally. It needs to be safe from being
    overwritten when the system software is updated. It may be used for
    programs and data that are shareable amongst a group of hosts, but
    not found in /usr.
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.txt.gz

Incidentally, my rule of thumb is that if a program's files are arranged
Unix-style, with binaries in /usr/local/bin or /usr/local/sbin,
libraries in /usr/local/lib, man pages in /usr/local/man, etc., then
the program can go in /usr/local.

Other packages (usually from the commercial world) which like to have
all their files under one directory can have the directory in /opt.

So if I install RealPlayer from the tar file, it goes under /opt. I
haven't had the privilege of installing Oracle on *ix, but it looks like
it ought to go in /opt, too.

James.

-- 
E-mail address: james | Legacy (adj):
@westexe.demon.co.uk  | an uncomplimentary computer-industry epithet that
                      | means 'it works'.
                      |     -- Anthony DeBoer