opt/ vs /usr/local/opt

Where do you recommend such distribution would be preferred for FreeBSD?

  • /opt/ foo

  • /usr/local/opt foo

  • Either or is just fine

Results are only viewable after voting.
BeOurGuest

BeOurGuest

I recently learned that not all BSD distros have a default /opt/ path as Linux does. Notably FreeBSD. Which was news to me because the original BSD distro I was playing with did. Reading the documentation it would appear that FreeBSD recommends /usr/local/. For my purposes, I was using /opt/ foo originally. But for distribution purposes, I can see the logic in using /usr/local/opt foo in the future.

A few keynotes. The distribution has its own libraries (you could technically run tar xjf foo.tar.bz2 on your desktop and it would work there). It also has the option to self-update. Which means whatever path used it would using chmod 757.

Where do you recommend such distribution would be preferred for FreeBSD?

/opt/ foo
/usr/local/opt foo
 
If this is only for your own systems then it really doesn't matter and /opt/ would work just fine.

If this is for a new port you're going to submit then neither works. Although some ports install as /usr/local/${portname} (see sysutils/logstash6 for example) but that's an exception, most ports use /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/lib, etc.

BeOurGuest said:
It also has the option to self-update.
Click to expand...
For a real port this would be a no-no.
 
SirDice said:
If this is only for your own systems then it really doesn't matter and /opt/ would work just fine.

If this is for a new port you're going to submit then neither works. Although some ports install as /usr/local/${portname} (see sysutils/logstash6 for example).
Click to expand...

Can you explain further? If by port you mean to inquire will this be using a repo via the package manager, no.
 
SirDice said:
I mean a proper submitted port in /usr/ports (all packages in the repositories are built from this).
Click to expand...
Not using repo and application will be backward compatible between Linux and BSD... ie... Not looking to make a separate release.
 
Not using repo and application will be backward compatible between Linux and BSD... ie... Not looking to make a separate release.
Click to expand...

So it's basically a private self-contained application that you are deploying without using pkg.

It really makes no difference, although I would go for /usr/local/opt to at least maintain some of the fundamental hierarchy of FreeBSD. The "root" directories are for the system, third party stuff should be under /usr/local/.

If you're using /opt on Linux, and it will simplify things to just use the same path, then I don't really see a problem doing that either tbh.
 
usdmatt said:
So it's basically a private self-contained application that you are deploying without using pkg.
Click to expand...
YES. I am sorry if I have not been clear on that. I wrongfully assumed when I said it would not be using the package manager (or repo) that folks would know this is what I meant.
 
Packages are allowed to create arbitrary directories under /usr/local as long as they don't clash with each other, therefore /usr/local/opt is definitely not recommended. Self-updating software usually lives in the user's home directory.
 
shkhln said:
Packages are allowed to create arbitrary directories under /usr/local as long as they don't clash with each other, therefore /usr/local/opt is definitely not recommended.
Click to expand...
The application will support multi-user involvement. But we also do not want it clashing. Exactly what makes /usr/local/opt foo a bad choice? Originally /opt/ foo was considered since it should be more independent.
 
BeOurGuest said:
I wrongfully assumed when I said it would not be using the package manager (or repo) that folks would know this is what I meant.
Click to expand...
You wrongfully assumed everything is based on packages ;)

With FreeBSD all third-party software starts with a port. All package repositories for all versions and architectures are built from those ports.
 
SirDice said:
You wrongfully assumed everything is based on packages ;)

With FreeBSD all third-party software starts with a port. All package repositories for all versions and architectures are built from those ports.
Click to expand...
The distribution will be you download a sh bash file. Run the bash it downloads the tar, it extracts to install path, it creates user shortcuts. DONE.
 
shkhln said:
Honestly, that's just weird. The point of multi-user environment is isolation and you are proposing a scheme where the application can be updated from any user account on the machine. There is no way to do this "properly".
Click to expand...
Thanks for your opinion.
usdmatt said:
If you're using /opt on Linux, and it will simplify things to just use the same path, then I don't really see a problem doing that either tbh.
Click to expand...


I think usdmatt was right. /opt/ foo Which is where we assumed. But wanted to double-check.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top