Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #180268 > unrolled thread

Proper folder for non-Debian binaries

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Proper folder for non-Debian binaries Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-04-19 14:40 +0200
    Re: Proper folder for non-Debian binaries Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-04-19 15:10 +0200
      Re: Proper folder for non-Debian binaries Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2017-04-19 19:50 +0200
        Re: Proper folder for non-Debian binaries Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-04-19 20:00 +0200
          Re: Proper folder for non-Debian binaries Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2017-04-20 05:50 +0200
        Re: Proper folder for non-Debian binaries David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-04-19 20:30 +0200
          Re: Proper folder for non-Debian binaries Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 21:10 +0200
            Re: Proper folder for non-Debian binaries David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-04-20 05:00 +0200
          Re: Proper folder for non-Debian binaries Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2017-04-20 02:10 +0200
            Re: Proper folder for non-Debian binaries Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> - 2017-04-20 06:00 +0200
              Re: Proper folder for non-Debian binaries Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2017-04-20 07:00 +0200

#180268 — Proper folder for non-Debian binaries

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.
TIA

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#180269

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180284

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
drwxrwxrwx  2  4096 Dec 16 00:02 ff21-32
drwxrwxrwx  2  4096 Dec 16 00:02 ff28-32
drwxrwxrwx 13  4096 Dec 15  2012 ff3
drwxrwxrwx  2  4096 Dec 16 00:02 ff30-32
drwxrwxrwx  8  4096 Nov 17 16:52 ff49
drwxrwxrwx 10  4096 Dec 28  2015 ffe10
drwxrwxrwx  2  4096 Dec 16 00:02 ffe10-32
drwxrwxrwx 11  4096 Feb 14 15:25 ffe17
drwxrwxrwx 11  4096 Dec 16 00:02 ffe17-32
drwxrwxrwx  9  4096 May  4  2016 ffe38
drwxrwxrwx  2  4096 Dec 16 00:02 ffe38-32
drwxrwxrwx  8  4096 Apr 19 01:49 ffe45
drwxrwxrwx  9  4096 Mar 21 15:59 ffnxt
drwxrwxrwx  2  4096 Dec 16 00:02 ffnxt-32
drwxrwxrwx  9  4096 Apr  7 23:41 fftst
drwxrwxrwx  2  4096 Dec 16 00:02 fftst-32
drwxrwxrwx  2  4096 Sep  8  2013 ffx
drwxr-xr-x  2  4096 Dec  9 03:51 games
drwxr-xr-x  2  4096 Dec  9 03:51 include
drwxr-xr-x  2  4096 Dec  9 03:51 lib
drwxr-xr-x  2  4096 Dec  9 03:51 lib64
drwxr-xr-x 12  4096 Dec  9 03:51 man
drwxr-xr-x  2  4096 Dec  9 03:51 sbin
drwxr-xr-x  5  4096 Dec  9 03:51 share
drwxrwxrwx 11  4096 Oct 17  2016 sm240
drwxrwxrwx 11  4096 Oct 17  2016 sm242
drwxrwxrwx 10  4096 Apr 18 19:11 smcur
drwxrwxrwx  2  4096 Dec 16 00:02 smcur-32
drwxrwxrwx 10  4096 Apr 18 18:36 smnxt
drwxrwxrwx  2  4096 Dec 16 00:02 smnxt-32
drwxrwxrwx 12  4096 Feb 28 13:12 smtst
drwxrwxrwx  2  4096 Dec 16 00:02 smtst-32
drwxr-xr-x  2  4096 Dec  9 03:51 src
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180285

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Le decadi 30 germinal, an CCXXV, Felix Miata a écrit :
> /usr/local/<applicationNameVersion>, like so:

The directory you are looking for is /opt.

Symlinks from /usr/local to the latest version in /opt are often a good
idea.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180305

On 20/04/17 05:56, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le decadi 30 germinal, an CCXXV, Felix Miata a écrit :
>> /usr/local/<applicationNameVersion>, like so:
> The directory you are looking for is /opt.

On my Debian machine:

$ ls -al /opt
total 20
drwxr-xr-x  5 root root 4096 Apr 15 19:48 ./
drwxr-xr-x 22 root root 4096 Apr 15 13:09 ../
drwxr-xr-x  3 root root 4096 Apr 15 19:48 brother/
drwxr-xr-x  3 root root 4096 Apr 15 18:37 google/
drwxr-xr-x  2 root root 4096 Apr 15 18:36 skypeforlinux/

These are Brother scanner drivers, Google Chrome, and Skype for Linux. 
The last two are managed via apt repositories but still live in /opt. 
All install scripts/links in /usr/bin.

Kind regards,

-- 
Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz>
Director
Transient Software Limited <http://transient.nz/>
New Zealand

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180287

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.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180292

On 4/19/17, David Wright <deblis@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.

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.. :)

Just thinking out loud... :)

Cindy :)

-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with duct tape *

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180304

On Wed 19 Apr 2017 at 15:06:11 (-0400), Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> On 4/19/17, David Wright <deblis@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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180299

David Wright composed on 2017-04-19 13:25 (UTC-0500):

> On Wed 19 Apr 2017 at 13:46:51 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:

>> /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.

When I first started doing that several PC eons ago I didn't find any sensible
alternative. Denying an admin the right to create other directories in the root
of /usr/local/ makes no sense to me. According to 4.9, as admin, /usr/local/ is
mine to write in, not any package manager or other installer. Thus, I find no
legitimacy in finding in that list violation of 4.9.

My installations are all multiboot. Thus I have /usr/local/ on a separate
filesystem to be shared by whichever Linux installation is operating; as opposed
to /opt/, which installers other than standard OS package managers (and
apparently Brother) use as a matter of course. Thus I keep /opt/ as a directory
on the / filesystem. I never put anything in /opt/. Whatever shows up there is
not my doing, at least, not directly.

As to 9.1.1&2, I find the numerous stated deviations from FHS effectively make
Debian de facto non-compliant with FHS.

True that my response was not a perfect match to the OP's question, but given
its author, I thought it nevertheless pertinent. :-)
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180306

Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> writes:

> Denying an admin the right to create other directories in the root of
> /usr/local/ makes no sense to me.

It makes sense in the context of “this space reserved for future use”.

The operating system reserves some name spaces – including the root
directory – to allow newer versions to introduce new entries
unilaterally, knowing that any existing entry found there is *already*
in violation of the standard and should be removed.

-- 
 \       “Only good questions deserve good answers.” —Oscar Wilde, _De |
  `\                                                  Profundis_, 1897 |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180308

Ben Finney composed on 2017-04-20 13:53 (UTC+1000):

> Felix Miata wrote:

>> Denying an admin the right to create other directories in the root of
>> /usr/local/ makes no sense to me.

> It makes sense in the context of “this space reserved for future use”.

> The operating system reserves some name spaces – including the root
> directory – to allow newer versions to introduce new entries
> unilaterally, knowing that any existing entry found there is *already*
> in violation of the standard and should be removed.

Again, /usr/local/ to other than a sysadmin I read to be defined as read-only,
so I don't see how "reserved for future use" (absent from
http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s09.html BTW) could apply.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web