4 ms·
Which is exactly what GP mentioned. Although using `/opt` to begin with is an anti-pattern in all cases including Chrome.
by nilved 10y ago
Which is exactly what GP mentioned. Although using `/opt` to begin with is an anti-pattern in all cases including Chrome.
- paulddraper 10y agoWhich is exactly what I mentioned. Are we looking for a disagreement?
- nilved 10y agoMaybe, sorry if I misread your comments!
- calpaterson 10y agoSeems reasonable to me if it's a third party package that doesn't want to clobber whatever the distro installs. Where else? /srv?
- woodruffw 10y ago/usr/local, traditionally. Since it only exposes one executable anyways, I'd say the chance of clobbering is fairly small (and reversible, since it's a deb).
- mst 10y agoAugh! No no no no no no. Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. /usr/local belongs to the sysadmin (I grit my teeth at FreeBSD's interpretation of this, much though I love the OS otherwise, and prefer NetBSD's addition of a /usr/pkg hierarchy to avoid jamming packages in /usr instead, which is only a bit less aggravating). /opt exists basically for vendors to have somewhere to put things that they know won't trample on my /usr/local hierarchy. (I still think they should've installed something in $PATH, mind, but /opt is not at all the wrong answer to my mind.)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]