3 ms·
Yes, this is what I do: * Linux: "/usr/local" or "/opt/local" depending on distro * NetBSD: "/usr/local", NetBSD packages go into "/usr/pkg". I wish all othe
by jmclnx 2y ago
Yes, this is what I do:
* Linux: "/usr/local" or "/opt/local" depending on distro
* NetBSD: "/usr/local", NetBSD packages go into "/usr/pkg". I wish all other systems adopted pkgsrc :(
* OpenBSD: "/opt/local", OpenBSD packages go into /usr/local
If on a system I do not "own", like AIX at work or SDF, I use $HOME/local
- zahlman 2y agoI had understood that /opt is intended to be inherently "local" in the /opt/local sense. What sort of things would you put in /opt but not /opt/local?
- jmclnx 2y ago/opt/local is for programs/libraries I created and smaller programs I downloaded source and compiled. /opt would be for canned items. For example, if for some reason on Linux, I want to execute the latest Firefox or Thunderbird I would get the pre-built binaries and extract them in /opt. When I did that in the past, all items will be stored in /opt/firefox and /opt/thunderbird. Plus many proprietary objects like to be sitting in /opt in their own directories.
- paulddraper 2y agoYes /opt/local is non-standard.
- zahlman 2y ago(Too late to fix the typo now, but I meant "the /usr/local sense".)
- jmclnx 2y agoDepends on distro OpenBSD uses it. So off to /opt NetBSD I use it for my items, no need for /opt Linux I use /opt for my items because some distros throw items there or messes around with /usr/local. Also some proporatary packages I used at work on RHEL tosses items there.