What about /usr/local/bin + sbin merge?

Jindur · 2013-06-03 18:52:22

With the merge of /bin and /lib folders that just happened I was curious if there was a particular reason to keep both /usr/local/bin and /usr/local/sbin as actual folders in the filesystem, instead of making /usr/local/sbin a symlink to /usr/local/bin.

Scimmia · 2013-06-03 18:55:52

They talked about it, the question is, how do you do it? Anything in /usr/local is usually files outside of pacman, so there's not really an upgrade path like they had here where they could move everything.

karol · 2013-06-03 19:06:01

Scimmia wrote:

They talked about it, the question is, how do you do it? Anything in /usr/local is usually files outside of pacman, so there's not really an upgrade path like they had here where they could move everything.

https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail … 25031.html and a few next ones, up to https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail … 25034.html

Last edited by karol (2013-06-03 19:07:41)

Awebb · 2013-06-03 21:36:39

I think, on the contrary, that /usr/local should be as deep as the filesystem package may own. It is absolutely none of pacman's business, what I do in local and it should be up to me to organize those folders to my needs, without every update of the filesystem package risking mayhem.

karol · 2013-06-03 21:39:06

Awebb wrote:

I think, on the contrary, that /usr/local should be as deep as the filesystem package may own. It is absolutely none of pacman's business, what I do in local and it should be up to me to organize those folders to my needs, without every update of the filesystem package risking mayhem.

This means that you agree with Allan: https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail … 25034.html

Allan wrote:

People do dumb things with /usr/local.

cfr · 2013-06-03 22:41:45

It already complains that /usr/local doesn't have standard permissions on my system. The last thing I want is for pacman to start fiddling directly with the folder hierarchy there.

People also do non-dumb things with /usr/local that the filesystem package has no way of knowing about and no right interfering with. Even Apple leaves /usr/local alone!

But, yes, if you like, I insist on my right to do dumb things with /usr/local. I just insist that dumbness is sometimes in the eye of the beholder...

fukawi2 · 2013-06-03 23:02:52

/usr/local/ is absolutely under the control of the system admin and the package manager has no business touching it. The converse is also true though; the system admin should not be interferring with the package managers work in /usr/{{s,}bin,lib{,64},share,include}/ etc so the distinctions between them should definitely be kept.

Jindur · 2013-06-04 18:25:47

fukawi2 wrote:

/usr/local/ is absolutely under the control of the system admin and the package manager has no business touching it.

So that means if I have only stock packages installed via package manager, I can safely delete the /usr/local/sbin folder? Cause I know that I (the "system admin") did definitely not create that folder. But the clutter of it just sitting there in addition to /usr/local/bin -if I ever need it- annoys me (slightly) .

arojas · 2013-06-04 18:39:17

Jindur wrote:

So that means if I have only stock packages installed via package manager, I can safely delete the /usr/local/sbin folder? Cause I know that I (the "system admin") did definitely not create that folder. But the clutter of it just sitting there in addition to /usr/local/bin -if I ever need it- annoys me (slightly) .

It is not a good idea to mess manually with folders/files that are installed by packages. If you delete it, it will be recreated with every update of the filesystem package anyway

Jindur · 2013-06-04 19:22:25

Alright. So I guess that folder is actually not under my complete control, in the way that it has nothing to do with the package manager anymore.
So I'll just keep it for now.

fukawi2 · 2013-06-04 23:06:10

arojas wrote:

If you delete it, it will be recreated with every update of the filesystem package anyway

This.

Jindur wrote:

So I guess that folder is actually not under my complete control

The contents is*, pacman (actually, the filesystem package) just creates it for you since 99.9% of people either need it or don't care.

If it bothers you that much, you can use ABS to build your own "filesystem" package without any /usr/local/ paths

* Should be according to the Arch Packaging Standards unless someone writes a bad PKGBUILD which incidentally I found one of mine doing that yesterday... Accidents happen!

Last edited by fukawi2 (2013-06-04 23:07:23)

Arch Linux

#1 2013-06-03 18:52:22

What about /usr/local/bin + sbin merge?

#2 2013-06-03 18:55:52

Re: What about /usr/local/bin + sbin merge?

#3 2013-06-03 19:06:01

Re: What about /usr/local/bin + sbin merge?

#4 2013-06-03 21:36:39

Re: What about /usr/local/bin + sbin merge?

#5 2013-06-03 21:39:06

Re: What about /usr/local/bin + sbin merge?

#6 2013-06-03 22:41:45

Re: What about /usr/local/bin + sbin merge?

#7 2013-06-03 23:02:52

Re: What about /usr/local/bin + sbin merge?

#8 2013-06-04 18:25:47

Re: What about /usr/local/bin + sbin merge?

#9 2013-06-04 18:39:17

Re: What about /usr/local/bin + sbin merge?

#10 2013-06-04 19:22:25

Re: What about /usr/local/bin + sbin merge?

#11 2013-06-04 23:06:10

Re: What about /usr/local/bin + sbin merge?

Board footer