Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:25576 comp.unix.admin:157 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!emory!utkcs2!de5 From: de5@de5.ctd.ornl.gov (Dave Sill) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Software installation opinions needed Message-ID: <1990Sep19.125944.6489@cs.utk.edu> Date: 19 Sep 90 12:59:44 GMT References: <25908@shamash.cdc.com> Sender: news@cs.utk.edu (USENET News System) Reply-To: Dave Sill Followup-To: comp.unix.admin Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Lines: 113 [Followup redirected to comp.unix.admin.] In article <25908@shamash.cdc.com>, ddh@hare.cdc.com (dd horsfall x-4622) writes: > >Is there a "convention" (or even a "standard", who knows) which defines >the difference in content between /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, >/usr/new, /usr/etc, /usr/5bin, /usr/sbin ... and so forth, all the >combinations that start with / and end with bin or lib? Nothing formal, but the UNIX System Administration Handbook (Nemeth, Snyder, & Seebass) has a chart on page 41 that lists a bunch of these. For example: /bin commands needed for minimum system operability /usr/bin executable files /usr/local/bin local software (BSD) executables /usr/new new software that will soon be supported (BSD) /usr/etc where Sun puts things that everyone else puts in /etc >the usual (for us) stuff: program binary, man pages, example problems, >installation verification data; for each of these, do we >a) recommend a particular directory for its installation? >b) leave it up to each site/purchaser to figure out for themselves > what's best for their configuration? >c) Some combination -- recommended location for those who don't want to > think too hard about it, guidelines for the rest? Suggest a default, but allow the installer to either specify an alternate when running your installation script, or tell them how to edit the script itself. >Software installation: should we >a) _Move_ the program binary to a place where people expect to find such > things (i.e., something that's probably already in their $path) ? Probably a good idea. >b) Recommend adding a new directory to the $path? Nah, too much of a hassle, and PATH's are getting too long. >c) _Leave_ the binary in a product/version catalog, but build a link to > it from the "preferred" place in the path? Hard or soft link? Why? What good does the redundant link do? >How many of your third-party (i.e., not vendor-supplied) products fall >into the above categories. Which do you prefer? Most seem to take path b), but I find it annoying; not as an administator, but as a user. I'm sick of having to fiddle with .logins, .profiles, and .bashrcs on my various systems every time I install a new commercial product. I don't mind, for example, having to create /usr/frame to install FrameMaker, but why don't they install the `maker' script in /usr/bin rather than force people to cd to /usr/frame and run bin/maker or add /usr/frame/bin to their PATH and create an FMHOME environment variable? >Did someone provide >an installation script (or even document) that would be an >exemplary model for us to follow? If so, would you send me a copy? I generally like the way DEC installs go, using the utility `setld'. It allows installations from tape/cdrom or disk files, allows installations to be reversed (a *very* nice feature), can produce a list of installed software, etc. Unfortunately, only DEC has it. >Are there any specific "things" that an install script did that >particularly annoyed you? In other words, complete this sentence: >"Whatever you do, DON'T DO THIS..." There are zillions of "Don't do's", but in general, don't create or modify anything without notifying the installer. >Lastly, what else in this area should I know that I don't even know >that I don't know (as compared to the things that I know I don't know)? I don't know. >( Sidebar: How many of the above directories are local to my site and I >don't know any better? I've seen tham all before, one place or another, so they aren't site-specific. >Are any of them specific to certain vendors? Even /usr/etc, which Nemeth indicates is Sun-specific, is found on most UNIX systems, it's just that Sun seems to be particularly fond of it. >Does >the list of "standard" or "conventional" directories vary between >SysV and BSD based systems? ) Yes. For example, /usr/new and /usr/old are BSD-only and /usr/lbin is ATT-only. >Readers with an opinion in the above areas are invited to reply to the >address in .sig; I can't imagine that a large number of general >net.people have any interest in this... I think this is relevent for comp.unix.admin folks. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) These are my opinions. Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support