Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ptsfa!ames!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: Directory structure for local dir's Message-ID: <6377@brl-smoke.ARPA> Date: Tue, 1-Sep-87 04:34:35 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-smok.6377 Posted: Tue Sep 1 04:34:35 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 2-Sep-87 07:11:05 EDT References: <311@pvab.UUCP> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 22 In article <311@pvab.UUCP> robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) writes: >I'm a little curious about how I should organize our local >directories. Where should I put sources, binaries, libes, and so on. >I've been recommended by various people to put my binaries in >/usr/local, /usr/local/bin, /usr/lbin, and even /usr/bin (which AT&T >recommends in their SVID, I think). /usr/bin is simply wrong, but otherwise your system should already have such a directory you can use. It makes little difference what name you use. Many add-on application packages (e.g. a DBMS or the 5620 DMD software) really want their own separate directories. The main other consideration is disk space. If you have symbolic links, you have much more freedom to place directories where there's room. >About the same applies for sources. /usr/src/local, /usr/local/src, >and /usr/lsrc are the names I've seen. You should use the name closest to the one for your binaries. Be sure not to put local stuff unnecessarily in system directories. Sites that have done that have eventually learned why it's a bad idea, but I'll give you a clue: How easy is it to upgrade the system?