3 ms·

/usr/local is explicitly for user/administrator managed software versus /usr being for system managed stuff, it's the correct location for this on any UNIX/POSI

by snuxoll 10y ago

/usr/local is explicitly for user/administrator managed software versus /usr being for system managed stuff, it's the correct location for this on any UNIX/POSIX-like system.

bluejekyll 10y ago
Yes, sure, but there's always been a presumption in those definitions that you have a multi-user system. I would say that most people today operate their computers as single users. The multiuser paradigm, is more about differing security contexts. For me these locations are an artifact of multiuser systems days, it's generally more desirable for me to store most stuff in my home directory, such that when I upgrade computers, there's only one thing to copy over.
- vr46 10y ago
  Having brew install to ~user would be grand, not just for portability, but also to isolate it across users.
  - jfb 10y ago
    I do this. It's simple enough to install homebrew, to, say, $HOME/.homebrew. I haven't had any problems with this approach, but then, I don't use Ruby, and if I did I wouldn't use homebrew to manage it.
    - samatman 10y ago
      Except when you run Homebrew? I mean, I understood you, I'm fairly sure brew is the only Ruby command I run on a regular basis...
      - jfb 10y ago
        Right, true.
  - mikemcquaid 10y ago
    We can't relocate many binary packages (bottles) with dynamic paths like that, unfortunately, or we'd do that.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  Yes, sure, but there's always been a presumption in those definitions that you have a multi-user system. I would say that most people today operate their computers as single users. The multiuser paradigm, is more about differing security contexts. The multiuser features are used to provide defense in depth, especially for developer machines. For me these locations are an artifact of multiuser systems days, it's generally more desirable for me to store most stuff in my home directory, such that when I upgrade computers, there's only one thing to copy over. Apple's migration tool and cloning have always worked for me.
jordigh 10y ago
> POSIX Annoyingly, the FHS isn't POSIX (nor SUS) and thus not Unix. There's thus no real standardisation on what the filesystem should look like and thus even Guix or Gobolinux can be POSIX candidates. Even macOS takes advantage of this nonstandardisation by putting stuff in /Applications, /Library and /Users. The debate about what belongs in /usr, /usr/local, /opt (and hahaha, /opt/local) is mostly subjective opinions about just how local these local things are.

by snuxoll 10y ago

/usr/local is explicitly for user/administrator managed software versus /usr being for system managed stuff, it's the correct location for this on any UNIX/POSIX-like system.

bluejekyll 10y ago

Yes, sure, but there's always been a presumption in those definitions that you have a multi-user system. I would say that most people today operate their computers as single users. The multiuser paradigm, is more about differing security contexts. For me these locations are an artifact of multiuser systems days, it's generally more desirable for me to store most stuff in my home directory, such that when I upgrade computers, there's only one thing to copy over.

vr46 10y ago
Having brew install to ~user would be grand, not just for portability, but also to isolate it across users.
- jfb 10y ago
  I do this. It's simple enough to install homebrew, to, say, $HOME/.homebrew. I haven't had any problems with this approach, but then, I don't use Ruby, and if I did I wouldn't use homebrew to manage it.
  - samatman 10y ago
    Except when you run Homebrew? I mean, I understood you, I'm fairly sure brew is the only Ruby command I run on a regular basis...
    - jfb 10y ago
      Right, true.
- mikemcquaid 10y ago
  We can't relocate many binary packages (bottles) with dynamic paths like that, unfortunately, or we'd do that.
stcredzero 10y ago
Yes, sure, but there's always been a presumption in those definitions that you have a multi-user system. I would say that most people today operate their computers as single users. The multiuser paradigm, is more about differing security contexts. The multiuser features are used to provide defense in depth, especially for developer machines. For me these locations are an artifact of multiuser systems days, it's generally more desirable for me to store most stuff in my home directory, such that when I upgrade computers, there's only one thing to copy over. Apple's migration tool and cloning have always worked for me.

jordigh 10y ago

> POSIX Annoyingly, the FHS isn't POSIX (nor SUS) and thus not Unix. There's thus no real standardisation on what the filesystem should look like and thus even Guix or Gobolinux can be POSIX candidates. Even macOS takes advantage of this nonstandardisation by putting stuff in /Applications, /Library and /Users. The debate about what belongs in /usr, /usr/local, /opt (and hahaha, /opt/local) is mostly subjective opinions about just how local these local things are.