Encouraging the use of multiple packaging systems on one systems, and the resulting problems

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 11:07 +0200, Davide Bolcioni wrote:
> Mike MacCana wrote:
> 
> > On Linux, most administrators install software by RPM, and no
> > distinction is made between 'third party' or distro provided except the
> > Packager field.
> 
> Agreed, but RPM-installed software does not usually end up in
> /usr/local. 

True, but this only is a side-effect ...

> If I remember the FHS correctly, it is not supposed to end
> up there, as /usr/local is reserved to locally installed software and
> must be left untouched by a system upgrade.
... of this, because _vendors_ are supposed to install to /usr.
=> vendor supplied rpms normally do not end up below /usr/local.

Also, in a strictly FHS-compliant world, you would install all
non-vendor supplied packages to /usr/local and would not replace any
vendor supplied package nor file.

I.e. to install rpm packages to /usr/local you would have to build them
with a different package name and different %_prefix, %_bindir etc.,
than a vendor would do. 

As this is beyond most people's capabilities (and because most vendor
supplied rpm specs are not prepared for this), most people often simply
replace the vendor supplied packages below /usr, instead.
Strictly speaking, they violate the FHS, when doing so.

Ralf