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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- 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:-)
