[sf-lug] about /usr/local and package management

[Andy Grimm]

Hi, I'm new to the list, but thought this would be an interesting
place to weigh in.  In my sys admin experience, putting software in
the proper package format is always the best thing, but when that's
not achievable, there are only two potential places to install things
in the standard hierarchy: /opt and /usr/local.  Typically, /opt is
for vendor software (from HP, EMC, etc.), and many vendors are using
RPM packaging now, so on a Red Hat or SuSE server, the only place
completely free of packaged software is /usr/local.  Therefore, it's
the most appropriate place to install non-packaged software.

Just my two cents.

--Andy

On 10/18/06, jim stockford <jim at well.com> wrote:
>
>     my take on a package-managed OS (Red Hat's RPM
> or Debian's APT) is that as much as possible the SA for
> the box should use the package manager exclusively.
>     yes?
>
>     Ideally this would obviate the good old tar management
> wrt system and box-wide software
> ...(to use tar to install software is to sidestep the benefits
> ...of package management--the package management
> ...database is not updated, and there's the fat-finger-effect
> ...of tar-ing in something that is managed, breaking the
> ...package management for that software).
>
>     But there may be a legitimate need for tar-ing something
> in, for example chkrootkit.
>
>     THE QUESTION: is the /usr/local/ space _properly_ a no
> man's land for tar-ing and other means of adding non-
> package-managed software (e.g. writing and compiling,
> copying...)?
>     Seems like to me, but what's your experience (with
> production boxes per SF-LUG colo-ing a box in a
> production environment)?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
>