Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cyb-eng.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!harpo!seismo!ut-sally!cyb-eng!topher
From: topher@cyb-eng.UUCP (Topher Eliot)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: /lib, /usr/lib, /usr/local/lib
Message-ID: <362@cyb-eng.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Apr-84 14:29:04 EST
Article-I.D.: cyb-eng.362
Posted: Fri Apr 20 14:29:04 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Apr-84 09:14:04 EST
References: <12175@sri-arpa.UUCP> <306@kpno.UUCP>
Organization: Cyb Systems, Austin, Texas
Lines: 22

If my impression is correct, once upon a time there was /lib, where the
libraries were kept.  Then /usr/lib was added, for 'local stuff that isn't
part of the standard system, but that we still want to make available to
everyone on the machine', (well, ok, also for systems whose root disks
were too small.  But that doesn't occur very much these days).  For the
sake of tidiness, I would love to throw away /usr/lib, /usr/bin, and all
the other 'duplicate' directories.  But I can't, because those pathnames
are built into so many programs.

So now we have /usr/local/lib for 'local stuff that isn't part of the
standard system, but that we still want to make available to everyone on
the machine'.  Pretty soon that pathname will be compiled into lots of
programs, too.

What's next?  /usr/local/REALLYlocal/lib?

Am I missing something, or is this an undesirable trend?

Cheers,
Topher Eliot
Cyb Systems, Austin, TX
ihnp4!ut-sally!cyb-eng!topher