Web lists-archives.com

Re: Proper folder for non-Debian binaries




On Wed 19 Apr 2017 at 15:06:11 (-0400), Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> On 4/19/17, David Wright <deblis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed 19 Apr 2017 at 13:46:51 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
> >> Brian composed on 2017-04-19 14:03 (UTC+0100):
> >>
> >> > On Wed 19 Apr 2017 at 07:30:20 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I wish to use SeaMonkey's Linux executable to maintain maximum
> >> >> compatibility
> >> >> with my Windows machine.
> >>
> >> >> Using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard as a
> >> >> guide
> >> >> I see several possible folders.
> >>
> >> >> What is Debian's preferred folder for executables available to all
> >> >> users.
> >              ↑↑↑↑↑↑
> >>
> >> > /usr/local/bin
> >>
> >> I think not such a good idea, especially for any who need immediate
> >> availability
> >> of multiple versions of a web browsing application. Better
> >> /usr/local/<applicationNameVersion>, like so:
> >> # ls -gG /usr/local/
> >> drwxr-xr-x  2  4096 Mar  2 01:17 bin
> >> drwxr-xr-x  3  4096 Dec 28 03:58 Brother
> >> drwxrwxr-x  2  4096 Mar 31 11:51 dfsee
> >> drwxr-xr-x  3  4096 Feb 28 12:58 etc
> >> drwxrwxrwx 13  4096 Dec 12  2013 ff2
> > [... etc ...]
> >
> > That conflicts with the FHS §4.9 and with Debian's Policy Manual §9.1.1&2.
> 
> 
> It has been a LONG time since I manually installed something that way,
> but I do remember pointing my installs at /usr/local. My package
> manager would take care of the rest by intelligently placing files in
> Brian's recommended /usr/local/bin along with other locations such as
> /usr/local/share and /usr/local/lib if required.
> 
> My rationale was that installing into /usr/local made it easier for me
> to keep track of the packages I did install that way.

If you do exactly as you described in ¶1, then that's the correct
way. In ¶2 you wrote "into /usr/local", which is different from what
you did. The Debian Policy Manual is careful to distinguish "below"
(what you did) from "into" (what the listing above shows).

> Whether that likewise conflicts, I'm not sure. I understand what's
> being said there, but I've just never had to actually think on
> it/worry about it since I've always been a single user system.
> 
> I do remember always wondering to myself if that /usr/local directory
> meant that the package was only available to the "local" user behind
> the install (even though "root" ultimately installed), but I never got
> around to testing it with a second user.. :)

No, it should be available to users just like normal software.
The "local"ity is the host or group of hosts.

Cheers,
David.