* Noah Sombrero ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: > On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:29:59 -0600, you wrote: > > >Apt installs there because that's where the FHS > >(http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) says things should go. > > Was not disputing that there might be authority behind how > it is done. > > >Rather than making it difficult to use extra hard drives, this easily > >allows you to dedicate a partition to /usr, possibly one to /usr/local > >(if you install a lot of stuff that's not under apt's control). > > Again, there is only one /usr. If that one is full, and I install a new > hd... /usr/local is used some by other installation methods. I see > that Sylpheed and Forte (java ide) put themselves there. I did not > say it was impossible to use the extra space, just not easy.
Yes, you could install everything under e.g. /opt (/opt/package1, /opt/package2, etc.) Then you could mount /opt/packageN as separate filesystems. Of course you'll run out of environment space (for PATH et al.) very fast with that setup, so you make symlinks to /usr/[bin|lib|man|...]. I hear it's been tried. I also hear that it was *much* worse than installing stuff directly in /usr. >From personal experience, installing things in /opt/foo and using stow to link them to /usr/local sucks in many interesting ways (at least on Solaris). So don't think FHS mandates that because FHS is stupid. Dima -- Surely there is a polite way to say FOAD. -- Shmuel Metz "Go forth and multiply". -- Paul Martin
