On Wed 19 Apr 2017 at 15:06:11 (-0400), Cindy-Sue Causey wrote: > On 4/19/17, David Wright <deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote: > > On Wed 19 Apr 2017 at 13:46:51 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote: > >> Brian composed on 2017-04-19 14:03 (UTC+0100): > >> > >> > On Wed 19 Apr 2017 at 07:30:20 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > >> > >> >> I wish to use SeaMonkey's Linux executable to maintain maximum > >> >> compatibility > >> >> with my Windows machine. > >> > >> >> Using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard as a > >> >> guide > >> >> I see several possible folders. > >> > >> >> What is Debian's preferred folder for executables available to all > >> >> users. > > ↑↑↑↑↑↑ > >> > >> > /usr/local/bin > >> > >> I think not such a good idea, especially for any who need immediate > >> availability > >> of multiple versions of a web browsing application. Better > >> /usr/local/<applicationNameVersion>, like so: > >> # ls -gG /usr/local/ > >> drwxr-xr-x 2 4096 Mar 2 01:17 bin > >> drwxr-xr-x 3 4096 Dec 28 03:58 Brother > >> drwxrwxr-x 2 4096 Mar 31 11:51 dfsee > >> drwxr-xr-x 3 4096 Feb 28 12:58 etc > >> drwxrwxrwx 13 4096 Dec 12 2013 ff2 > > [... etc ...] > > > > That conflicts with the FHS §4.9 and with Debian's Policy Manual §9.1.1&2. > > > It has been a LONG time since I manually installed something that way, > but I do remember pointing my installs at /usr/local. My package > manager would take care of the rest by intelligently placing files in > Brian's recommended /usr/local/bin along with other locations such as > /usr/local/share and /usr/local/lib if required. > > My rationale was that installing into /usr/local made it easier for me > to keep track of the packages I did install that way.
If you do exactly as you described in ¶1, then that's the correct way. In ¶2 you wrote "into /usr/local", which is different from what you did. The Debian Policy Manual is careful to distinguish "below" (what you did) from "into" (what the listing above shows). > Whether that likewise conflicts, I'm not sure. I understand what's > being said there, but I've just never had to actually think on > it/worry about it since I've always been a single user system. > > I do remember always wondering to myself if that /usr/local directory > meant that the package was only available to the "local" user behind > the install (even though "root" ultimately installed), but I never got > around to testing it with a second user.. :) No, it should be available to users just like normal software. The "local"ity is the host or group of hosts. Cheers, David.
