sens@FASECON.ECON.NYU.EDU (Sunando Sen) writes:

quoted text
> Thus I simply haven't been able to figure 
>out whether I should create a /usr/local hierarchy for anything other than 
>those that came with hlu's distribution and the aforementioned packages.  
>Consequently, I have been stuffing everything that I get into /usr/bin and
>/usrX386/bin.  These two directories are getting very big!  But creating a 
>/usr/local tree seems wasteful, since I will be using only the /usr/local/
>bin directory.  So, what do the pundits say?  What is a good place to stick 
>in those "other" binaries?  Is something like /usr/bin/local Politically 
>Correct?  (I suppose what I am getting at is it will be useful to have a "
>standard way of organising files under Linux).

there is no 'one true directory structure' and there was a long discussion
(ok, flame war) about /usr/local/bin being somehow a bad thing.

there is a /usr/local/lib for lots'a stuff in SLS and people don't seem to
be complaining...so to me /usr/local/bin is a natural 'ok to do',
but the current 'standard' for SLS at least is /usr/bin at this time 
(I don't like it, but I can live with it).

Personally, I'm staying in synch with SLS at this time so that I can grab the
sources for stuff and type 'make' without having to worry if all the paths
match up.
-- 
     ---------- Vince Skahan --------- vince@victrola.sea.wa.us ----------
                  +++ A Waffle Iron - Linux Division +++