Simple HowTo

[John Summerfield]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> Gene Poole wrote:
> 
<snip>

>>> By convention, packages installed from source are placed in /usr/local,
>>> probably for very good reasons (i.e. no chance of tainting other
>>> necessary packages)
> 
> 
>> This sounds like, going forward, I'll have less to say about where I 
>> place
>> software than with M$!
> 
> If you want to use any packaged (rpm) programs you have to make sure 
> that locally compiled programs don't conflict, so /usr/local works for 
> that - and is the default for most source installs.

It's also a standard, inherited from Unix many years ago.


> 
>> Also, if they are going to do that then the documentation needs to 
>> tell me
>> ahead of time what file systems need how much space since we divide up 
>> the
>> hard disk before installing software.

Won't happen. Depends on build (feature selections, debugging) options, 
target CPU (expect 64-bit code to be bigger than 32-bit).

>>
>> I feel like I'm going backwards - use the provided RPM or else!
> 
> Or else it's your responsibility to keep it out of the way of the 
> packaged versions and rebuild it yourself every time it needs an update. 
>  There are still some things where this is worth the trouble, but I 
> don't think apache and tomcat would be.  What do you get with your own 
> build that isn't in the RPM version?

/usr/local is correct for locally-built software intended for general 
use on the machine.

For stuff intended for yourself alone. a place in ~ is appropriate.

You can ignore the standards and conventions as much as you like on 
systems you own, but acquaint yourself with the rules (see 
www.pathname.com)  and follow them on any systems you manage for someone 
else.

btw Take a look at ${PATH}



-- 

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu  Z1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

You cannot reply off-list:-)