Slashdot Mirror
Rage Against the File System Standard
pwagland submitted a rant by Mosfet on file system standards. I think he's sort of over simplified the whole issue, and definitely wrongly assigned blame, but it definitely warrants discussion. Why does my /usr/bin need 1500 files in it?
Is it the fault of lazy distribution package management? Or is it irrelevant?
I'd much rather have 2000 binaries in /usr/bin than 2000 path entries in my $PATH
Mike
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
imo, we need a better command path system thingy that allows easier categorization of executables and other stuff... Win32 has the System32 (or System) directory, *nix has /usr/bin, /usr/share/bin, /usr/local/bin etc...
I don't have a solution, but i'll devote a few idle cycles to it...
Anyone who claims that RedHat started the use of /usr/bin/ as a dumping ground can't be taken seriously. Pretty sure slackware and SLS did the same thing. Same goes for Solaris, AIX, AUX, Sun/OS, Irix, and HPUX.
It's not about lazy distributors. It's about administrators who are used to doing things this way and distributors going along with tradition.
I think it is better to install all your programs binaries under a subdirectory, then symlink the executables to the /bin /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin directorys. This gives you a lot easier way to remove programs that don't have an uninstall script included, and Is a lot more organized.
--
FearLinux.com
...makes this unnecessary. When I can use RPM to verify the purpose and integrity of every binary in /usr/bin, I don't see a need for separating software into a meaningless directory structure.
DOS put programs in different folders because there was no other way to tell what package the software belonged to.
This is _EXACTLY_ why I use LinuxFromScratch. You do not HAVE to use the package managment system, you can install anything *just* the way *you* want it. X applications in /usr/bin? No way jose! (My appoligies to anyone named Jose, I'm sure you are sick of hearing that one), /usr/X11 it is! If you are not happy with the standards, make your own, it just takes a little time and in-depth knowledge.
And you should, normally. If you system installs binutils as an RPM, DEB, Sun/HP/SGI package, well, you _should_ use the package manage to upgrade/remove. After all, if you don't, you're going to start breaking your dependencies for other packages. That's why package managers exist!
In some respects, Linux is better than many commercial unices. SGI uses
I agree that there should be a new, standard directory structure, but I disagree that every package in the world should have its own directory. If you're using a decent package manager, included with ANY distro or commercial/free Unix variant, there's little need to do so.
So, I'd say yes, it probably is partly because of lazy distro package management, but then again some people might still use some of this stuff and expect it to be there.
On most new distrubutions I've see this is actually getting better. The latest Slack at least completely separates gnome by putting it in /opt/gnome.
In any case though, I think there are more important things to worry about, such as all-purpose configuration tools, or at least lump them all together into a graphical management tool. You should be able to configure everything from sound/video to printers all in the same place.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
The database-like features of attributes/index of the BeOS filesystem could be an interesting solution to the problem of the PATH variable.
BeOS keeps a record of all executables files on the disk and is able to find which one to use to open a specific file type. You don't have to register it with the system or anything, if it's on the disk it will be found. That makes it easy to install BeOS applications in their own directories. However, BeOS doesn't use this system to replace the PATH variable in the shell but one could imagine a system that does just that.
True warriors use the Klingon Google
This is somewhat parallel to the situation common in Windows, where every new application tries to place its shortcuts in a separate folder off Start Menu/Programs. It's common to see start menus that take up two screens or more, whereas everything could be found much faster if properly categorised. MS made things worse in Win98 by having the menu nonalphabetical by default.
/usr/local distinction useful, for example? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a setup like /usr/apps, /usr/utils, /usr/games, /usr/wm, and so on - to categorise items by their function, rather than by who compiled them?
/home thing is equally confusing to a Windows migrant. Yes, *nix is a multi-user OS. But is that a useful feature for the majority of home users? Providing irrelevant directories is a sure-fire way to confusion.
Limiting bad organisation to Red Hat is silly. The only Linux distros I've tried are Red Hat and Mandrake, both of which are equally poor in this regard. Nor, I have to say, does the FSS make it any easier to organise a hard drive properly. Is the
The whole
It's impossible to have a perfectly organised hard disk, of course. You can't fight entropy.
/opt/LINWgrep/bin/grep
/opt/LINWsed/bin/sed
/opt/LINWdate/bin/date....
The one thing this guy fails to answer is "why is it bad that I have 2000 files in /usr/bin?". There are no tangible benefits I can see to splitting things up, other than perhaps a mild performance gain, and satisfying someone's overeager sense of order.
Failing to answer that, I think his whole discussion is pointless.
Blaming it on lazyness on not wanting to muck with PATH is wrong. Managing your PATH is a real issue, something an administrator with any experience should understand. In the bad old days we came up with ludicrious schemes that people would run in their dot files to manage user's PATH. I'm glad those days are over. Not having to worry about PATH is a tangible benefit. Forcing package mantainers to use a clear and concise standard on where to put programs is a tangible benefit.
Perhaps I'm biased because these past many years I've always worked with operating systems (Solaris, Debian, *BSD) that have package management systems. I don't care where they get installed, as long as when I install the package and type the command it runs. This is a Good Thing.
~> ls /usr/bin | wc -l
/bin | wc -l
/sbin | wc -l
/usr/sbin | wc -l
/usr/local/bin | wc -l
/usr and puts all extra stuff in /usr/local (sometimes the executable is in /usr/local/bin, sometimes in /usr/local//bin).
/usr.
/usr/local. It can be done, and keeps things tidy and clean.
403
~> ls
36
~> ls
91
~> ls
220
~> ls
796
This is FreeBSD, which installs a relatively clean OS under
I like that much more, it is the old UNIX way to separate the essential OS from optional stuff. It really is a pity that most Linux distro's dump everything directly in
As for my slackware, I installed only the minimum, and roll my own packages for everything I consider not to be 'core Linux'; all these packages go under
Even better would be if Linux had a translucent file system. Simply mount all the path directories on top of each other and let the OS do the rest.
For the uninitiated, a translucent file system lets you mount one filesystem on top of another filesystem, the idea being that if you tried to open a file the OS would first search the top filesystem, then the bottom one. In conjunction with non-root mounting of filesystems (e.g. in the Hurd) it removes the need for $PATH because you can just mount all the relevant directories on top of each other.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I wish Unix/Linux had a mechanism where a directory could be marked executable and executing the directory whould internally call some default dot file (such as .name_of_directory)within the directory, and some environmental variable (like $THIS_PATH) was set to the directory and passed to the application process.
Maintance for applications like these whould be a no-brainer. Just move the directory and all the associated preference files and whatnot travel with the app.
-Steve
-- Making computers see, hear, and think... http://www.componica.com/
I think the fundamental problem here is related to yesterday's story about new user interfaces. It's a problem of how and where storing our files. Regarding applicationsn, there are two ways to do it: you can store all files (binaries, config files, man pages, etc.) of the same application in the same directory, or you can store all files of the same type from different applications in their respective directories (all config files in /etc, man pages in /usr/share/man (I think), etc.).
Both approaches have their advantages. The problem with hierarchical file systems is that we have to choose one of them. I would love to see a storage system where we can use both ways _at the same time_. A system that groups file depending on relationships they have. Such that 'ls /etc' gives me all config files for all apps, and 'ls /usr/local/mutt' shows me all mutt-related files, including it's config file(s).
I have no idea how to implement such a beast. I'm thinking about a RDBMS with indices on 'filetype' and 'application', but I would love to see something much more flexible. All pictures should be accessible under ~/pictures and subdirectories, all files relating to my vacation last year in ~/summer2000. Files relating to both should be in ~/pictures/summer2000 _and_ ~/summer2000/pictures.
To a certain extent, this can be done via symlinks, but it should be much easier to deal with. You shouldn't have much manual work
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
The unix system doesn't really dump all the files in /usr/bin. These are, almost without exception, executable files. For each executable, support files are usually installed into one or more directory trees, such as /usr/share/executable_name/. The main convenience gained by having all the main binaries in one place (or two - I usually try to leave system binaries in /usr/bin and my own installations in /usr/local/bin) is convenience for searching paths when looking for the binaries.
However, this paradigm is pretty ugly if you are browsing through your files graphically. It would be nice if each application/package installed into one directory tree, so you could reorganise the system simply by moving applications around. For example,
.. this dir holds all quake 3 files ...
... this dir hold all gimp files
/usr/applications/
/usr/applications/games/
/usr/applications/games/quake3/
...etc..
/usr/applications/graphics/
/usr/applications/graphics/gimp/
...etc...
If this appeals to you, you might like to check out the ROX project. This sort of directory tree layout was the standard on the Acorn Risc OS and made life extremely easy for GUI organisation. It makes a lot of sense to use the directory tree to categorise the apps and files.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
There's also a unique shared modules directory in the System folder.
This system is at least 10 to 15 years old (not sure Arthur was as modulable, though) and sure proved to be an excellent way to deal with this problem...
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Much better to have a few thousand files in one dir than to have so many dirs that need to be in your $PATH that some shells will barf.
For instance, the POSIX standard (I believe) is 1024 characters for $PATH statements. That's a minimum. My users at work sometimes have need for much longer $PATH's. Some OS vendors say, ok, 1024 is the minimum for POSIX compliance, that's what we're doing. Some, like HP-UX (believe it or not) have increased this at user request to 4K.
In any case, this all seems pretty petty. It's not like our current and future filesystems can't handle it, and package managers are pretty good and know what they put where.
This is only part of the problem and characteristic for the way unix has evolved. The whole problem is that there are no standards, just conventions which most unix programmers are only partly aware of. I imagine the whole reason for putting all binaries in a single directory was that you then only have to add one directory to the path variable. In other words because of genuine lazyness you have around 2000 executables in your /usr/bin directory. Of course adding all 2000 programs to the path is not the right solution either (that would be moving the problem rather than solving it). Obviously the path variable itself is not a very scalable solution and needs to be reconsidered.
To sum it up UNIX programs all have their own sets of parameters, their own semantics for those parameters, their own config files with their own syntax. Generally a program's related files are scattered through out the system. Just making things consistent would hugely improve usability of unix and reduce system administrator training cost. Most of the art of maintaining a unix system goes into memorizing commandline parameters, configuration file locations and syntax and endless man pages. Basically the ideal system administrator is not to bright (after all it is quite simple work), can work very precise, and has memorized every manpage he ever encountered. The not to bright part is essential because otherwise he'll get a good job offer and he'll be gone in no time.
Here's a sample better solution for the problem (inspired by mac os X packages): give each app its very own directory structure with e.g. the directories bin, man, etc for binaries, documentation and configuration. In the root of each package specify a meta information file (preferably xml based) with information about how to integrate the program with the system (e.g. commands that should be in the path, menu items, etc.). Standardize this format and make sure that the OS automatically integrates the program (i.e. adds the menu items, adds the right binaries to a global path, integrates the documentation with the help system). Of course you can elaborate greatly on these concepts but the result would be that you no longer need package managers except perhaps for assisting with configuration.
Jilles
How many of those 1500 binaries do you run, hmm?
Many distributions install lots of packages you don't need nowadays. Uninstall some, or switch to a more minimalist distribution. Try installing debian with only the base packages. Then whenever you need a program you don't have, apt-get it. It'll make for an annoying few weeks perhaps, but at the end you'll have a system with just what you need on it. I'll bet you will end up with only around 600 binaries in the end (Unless you install gnome... That's like 600 binaries on it's own.)
What does it matter anyway? If you have 1500 programs it's no better to have them in their own directories then to have them in one place. Also, it's not like you're dealing with all of them at once.
There probably is no way to solve all of the issues simultaneously in one hierachical scheme. Symlinks could help because they crosslink the tree. Package managers add a more sophisticated database of relations. These relations are much more useful, but unfortunately are accessible only through the package manager program.
All in all, though, it seems that organizing by package makes the most intuitive sense, and the helpers like package managers should be responsible for figuring out how to run the app when you type it on the command line.
You want the Encap package management system. From the FAQ:
The technique is essentially compatible with RPM, but Encap goes so far as to define a package format, which probably is not. If you like RPM, you might do better to simply follow the same convention.The file systems on a Unix system make a lot of sense, when people use them correctly.
/usr/local but they put a single executable in /usr/local/bin so that you do not need to change your path.
/usr/bin. Other programs are spread about the file system in sensible locations or are user installed. Possibly the only directory that does not make a whole lot of sense is /usr/libexec (where most of the internet daemons are kept).
/bin for binaries needed to boot a corrupted system.
/sbin for system binaries needed to boot a system.
/usr/bin for userland binaries installed with the base system.
/usr/sbin for system binaries installed with the base system. The are not programs required to boot the system.
/usr/local/bin for locally installed user binaries such as minicom, mutt, or bitchx.
/usr/local/sbin for locally installed system binaries such as apache.
Large locally installed programs such as Word Perfect get installed in a sub directory of
FreeBSD has only about 400 programs in a complete
-sirket
From my .zshenv, works in .profile too. Could be used also for other path variables. Works for all Operating Systems with a reasonable Bourne Shell.
/usr/local/gcc-2.95.2/bin
/opt/kde/bin
/usr/lib/java/bin
/usr/X11R6/bin
/usr/local/samba/bin
/usr/local/ssl/bin
/usr/local/bin
/usr/local/bin/gnu
/usr/bin
/bin
/usr/local/sbin
/usr/sbin
/sbin
/usr/ucb
/usr/bin/X11
/usr/ccs/bin
export PATH
reset_path() {
NPATH=''
}
set_path() {
if [ -d "$1" ]; then
if [ -n "$NPATH" ]; then
NPATH="$NPATH:$1"
else
NPATH="$1"
fi
fi
}
reset_path
set_path $HOME/bin
set_path
set_path
set_path
set_path
set_path
set_path
set_path
set_path
set_path
set_path
set_path
set_path
set_path
set_path
set_path
set_path
PATH="$NPATH:."
unset reset_path set_path
Mosfet is a emotionally unstable GUI hacker. His knowlege of the long history and tradition of UNIX administration is pathetic. He ignores simple observables like PATH searches are more expensive than bin lookups. One executable dir per App would be FAR SLOWER than 2000 executables in a single dir.
... mindless infidels :).
This is another classic example of not letting programmers, especially GUI progrmmers, be involved in OS design.
For those of you who might be swayed by his foolish arguemnts, please read LHS, and the last decade of USENIX papers and LISA papers. Unix systems organization has been openly and vigorously debated for 15years. It has not be dictated by mere programmers from high on above like MS. And RedHat is to be applauded for properly implementing the FHS which is a standard, others like SUSE should be encouraged to become compliant (/sbin/init.d
-- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
I have been lazy before with my linux box and let package management systems lay out files all over the freakin' place.
:->) with my Solaris box and followed this standard:
/usr/local/bin
/opt:
/usr/local/bin
/opt and put the damn symlink in /usr/local/bin.
/usr/local base.
I have done things the "right" way (according to my mentor admin anyway
/usr/bin - sh*t Sun put in.
Let pkgadd throw your basic gnu commands into:
Compile from source all major apps and services Database services, Web Servers etc...etc.. and put them into
/opt/daftname
symlink any executable needed by users into
(if you think like a sysadmin you realize most users do not need to automatically run most services)
Any commercial software goes to
Yes, it is extra work but it keeps you PATH short and fat and your users happy. This is not a problem with distros or package management systems as much as it is an issue of poor system administration.
I also understand it is a mixed approach with some things put under seperate directory structures for each program and some things in a comman
Common users do NOT need access to the Oracle or Samba bin. Give them a symlink to sqlplus and they are happy. Even though it is mixed if you stay consistent across all your boxes then the users are happy.
I understand it is tough but we have control in *nixes to put things where we want the deal is to use it.
PATH=/usr/bin:/usr/ucb:/usr/local/bin:.
export PATH
All a regular user needs.
ACK
The final solution to this mess.
/usr/bin who cares how many files their are there?
/usr
/usr
Unless you are hand writing each file in
And Windows !=
Program Files ==
This
When you consider the /usr or /local was similar in purpose as "program files" (or progra~1 if you want to be specific) had the best of intentions.
Well we know about which road going where based on good intentions.
At any rate, part of the "problem" is there is a certatin point a section of the file system gets unmanageable. Where that is, quite frankly, varies.
RedHat has impressed me with its compatability but it does so with static libs. There are times when god forbid you should wish to compile something and get gripe messages that you window manager was done under X set of libs, your theme manager under Y's libs and your shared libs are of version Z.
That is just trying to update the WM, god forbid you wish to compile a kernel.
And with the static libs, the performance hit is astounding.
The other side, as with Slackware, is shared libraries can be as unforgiving as well.
Heh, as a newbie I deleted a link to a ld.so.X.
Hint: never, ever do this! ls, ln, mv et al stop working...oops.
Stupidity on my part, but, hey, I was a newbie. (finger; fire; burn; learn. simple.)
Back on track. Slack is fast, configurable but through sheer will, accident, or stupidity can be broken a lot faster (and in some cases fixed a lot faster).
Windows...well the sword cuts both ways. It impresses and suffers *both* of the good and bad points of RH/SL (or static and dynamic libs).
And, if the above does not either blow your mind or make you nod off consider OS X.1.1 (.1.1.1....)
Under OS X's packages system a 'binary/folder/application' (oye) can and does contain static libs. Ok, that can be good/bad.
Here is the kicker (and cool part): if it finds *better* or more *up to date* libs it can use them and ignore what *it* has.
If the new libs break the app, or cause problems, the application can be "told" or "made" to use only its own libs, or update the newer libs.
Most will see where that is going. It will be good to keep "static" then use "dynamic" or update the "dynamic/shared" libs.
The down side is the potential to fix one application and break 10+ others.
This has not happened...yet. However, the *ability* to make or break is there, just no information is given until a spec/CVS set of rules is fleshed out.
I will be the first to admit that the "binary folder" or "fat binary" (arstechnica.com article) idea sounded "less than thrilling"...until you realize the headache's it cures with this kind of file system bloat.
Think about it: You have an app, that is really a folder, that you can't see inside/manipulate/fix/break unless you know how *and* have a reason to.
In all three cases there are limits to even the most intelligent of design. Knowing this truth is easy to accept. Finding where it lies and where it breaks down...that is another discussion.
If it is not on fire, it is a software problem.
While not perfect, it addressed the following issues:
1) separating O/S from "other" packages;
2) maintain a sane place to put different packages;
3) support the notion of linking to specific package directories from a common place to keep PATH small;
4) was compatible with a number of "traditional" conventions.
Of course, FHS 2.1 has this concept of the "operating system" files and "other files". Presumably the "operating system" is that which the distro bundler provides... so Red Hat would be free to put as much as it wants under /usr. But this causes a problem if you looks at a common standard base for several distros, like the LSB.
Do you have a "standard base" part, and a "distro part", and then a "local part"? Clearly what's needed is a hierarchical way of taking an existing "operating system" and customizing it to a "custom operating system". Right now, FHS allows this for distro bundler and end user, but there is no support for the process iterating.
Of course, my experience has been with FHS 2.1 and have since moved on to employment elsewhere, so perhaps the FHS addresses these issues.
You could've hired me.
Many years ago, we wrote a set of Perl utilities for automating symlink maintenance called opt_depot.
It's similar to the original CMU Depot program, but has built in support for linking to a set of NFS package volumes, and can cleanly interoperate with non-depot-managed files in the same file tree.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
The reason windows apps can happily install binaries in any directory is because they then go install their shortcuts in the Start menu, or the desktop. Of course if you want to run one from a command line interpreter you're pretty stuck.
So now my windows Start menu has 1000 items in it, but at least they are arranged hierarchically in 850 vendor program groups...
Baz
Most major distros install quite a bit of stuff by default that you will 1) you probably will never use 2) you probably dont know what it is 3) if it's a server you don't need anyway
/usr
/opt is reserved for the installation of add-on application software packages. A package to be installed in /opt must locate its static files in a separate /opt/ directory tree, where is a name that describes the software package.
/opt in their own subdirectory i.e.; /opt/kde2. I think this is a much better solution than cluttering up the /usr heirarchy, and makes it very simple to test a new version of without destroying the current setup.
This is one of the reasons I created Beehive Linux. It aims to be secure, stable, clean, FHS compliant, and optimized for hardware built in this century. Current version is 0.4.2, with 0.4.3 out in a week or so.
On one point however I must disagee with Mosfet:
The most obvious thing is separate the big projects like desktop projects into their own folders under
The FHS states:
Beehive puts large packages like apache, mysql, kde2 under
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
- systems may need a small partition with all files needed to boot
- configuration files need to be on a RW filesystem, while executables can be RO.
- many other reasons (read the FSS)
That doesn't mean all executables need to be in a single directory under /usr/bin. I agree it would be nice to come up with a good way to allow subdirectories and change the FSS accordingly. Just don't argue that all files related to a given piece of software be in a single directory as some have requested. That will make the life of an administrator of large systems even more difficult. My wife works in a place that does that and their system is nearly impossible to maintain.
Sure the FSS isn't perfect, but I have yet to see another system that does as good a job. Don't throw it away simply because you don't understand it, or even worse, because its biggest fault is a directory with 2000 entries.
-- YAAC (Yet Another Anonymous Coward)
I agree that this is a Linux-related issue that mostly stems from lazyness. I have been using the modules approach for tool management for years with very good results - even half a decade ago this was more advanced than any Linux approach out there today.
... environment to reflect the tools you want to use (note that this supports the usage of a tool, it is therefore not a replacement for package management tools like rpm, which are mainly concerned with installation.)
/bin etc.).
With this approach each tool/version-combination gets its own directory, including subdirectories for libraries, source code, configuration files etc.
You can then use a "module" commando to dynamically change your PATH, MANPATH,
Each tool/version combination comes with an associated modulefile (which has a tcl-like syntax) where you can influence a user's system environment upon loading/unloading the module. It is also possible to e.g. create new directories, copy default configurations or do platform-specific stuff for a tool (which greatly helps users less fluent in Unix, since they do not have to care about stuff like shell-specific syntax for setting environment variables).
It also allows you to give tool-specific help, e.g.
$ module whatis wordnet
wordnet: Lexical database for English, inspired by psycholinguistic theories of human memory.
$ module add wordnet
This is also very helpful if you want to keep different versions of the same tool (package, library) around and switch between them dynamically, e.g. for testing purposes (think different jdks, qt-libraries, etc.). With modules, you can e.g. do a simple
module switch jdk/1.2.2 jdk/1.3.1
and runs your tests again. And you never have to worry about overwriting libraries, configuration files etc. even if they have the same name (since they are kept in a subdirectory for each version).
For our institute I've set up a transparent tool management system that works across our Linux/Solaris/Tru64 platforms. All tools are installed this way (except the basic system commandos which still go into
Of course, it's a lot of work to start a setup like this, but in a complex environment it is really worth it, especially in the long run.
The tool I use (and prefer to GNU stow) to manage the stuff that isn't managed by a package manager is graft.
./configure --prefix=/usr/local/vim-6.0
/usr/local/vim-6.0, and graft creates symlinks in /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/man, etc.
/usr/local/vim-6.0
/usr/bin.
For stuff that uses GNU-style configure scripts to build, it's simply a matter of, e.g.
$
$ make
# make install
# graft -i vim-6.0
The files themselves are stored in
Removing the software simply involves:
# graft -d vim-6.0
# rm -rf
That said, I usually rely on the package manager, and don't really have a problem with 2000 files in
Have you actually had to manage a system that works like this? It's a royal pain in the ass.
Yup, I have. In fact, we've managed all of our UNIX systems that way for the last 8 years or so. It's not a pain in the ass at all.. in fact, with the opt_depot scripts we wrote, we support automagic NFS sharing of packages for all Solaris systems in our laboratory. Indidivual system administrators can choose to use a particular package off of their choice of NFS servers, or they can simply copy the package's directory to their local system.
Using symlinks gives you complete location independence.. all you need is a symlink from your PATH directory to the binaries, and a symlink from the canonical package location (e.g., /opt/depot/xemacs-21.5) to the actual location of the package directory, be it local or be it NFS.
There's a group at NLM who is working on tools and standard practices for managing NFS package archives using RPM, and then using the opt_depot scripts to integrate the package archives with each local system automatically.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Package management is a way to standardize the way software is installed, upgraded, and removed.
It sounds very appealing. The problem is that a lot of the software I need right now (openLDAP, openSSL, etc) has packages that are a full development generation old. There isn't a 2.x package yet for openLDAP on RH 6.2, for example, and I don't think anybody in particular is in charge of building it.
Building from source is the only way to be current, although it is often an immense pain in the ass.
The other gripe I have is about packages failing to recognize libraries that are installed just because they weren't installed by a package manager. Yes, you can force a --nodeps sometimes and cross your fingers, but you shouldn't have to lie to the software to get it to work. Package managers should be a little smarter and be able to look around a little to satisfy dependencies.
If the package system really worked cleanly, it would be great, but I'm still using Pine 4.20 on my box because of conflicting dependencies in the 4.3x packages. I'm about to nuke the whole thing and build Pine from source - which I'll do as soon as I can get those library dependencies solved.
Grr.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
We do the same thing on our Tru64 boxen. All 3rd party software goes in /opt or /usr/opt. 3rd party executables go in /usr/local/bin. Some executables live in an app-specific subdirectory under /opt and the symlink in /usr/local/bin points to the physical location. It makes OS upgrade time tons simpler. And the first step of our DR plan is to backup OS-related stuff and backup software on special tapes. Those get restored first so that we get a bootable system in a hurry. Then the rest of the software and data can be restored using the 3rd party backup software. None of this would be as easy to do if we had 2000 programs all living under /usr/bin. If Mosfet has a point it's that some distribution vendors make a mess out of the directory structure by dumping way, way too much stuff under, say, /usr/bin.
\begin{rant}
RedHat, are you listening? I like your distribution but the layout of the files you install sucks big time. Anyone who updates their applications (Apache, PostgreSQL, PHP, etc.) from the developer's sites has to undo the mess you guys create. Either that or don't install the versions on your CDs at all and just go with the source tars.
\end{rant}
(OK, I feel better now...)
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
QNX has a package filesystem like what you describe; it looks like it solves Mosfet's problem and keeps PATH simple.
While Red Hat is certainly a major offender, HP-UX 11.0 has device log files in the /etc hierarchy, and the runlevels are still under /sbin, and every "optional software" dumping ground ever invented (share, contrib, usr/local, opt, and more) as well as a totally brain-dead depot system that makes RPM look inspired.
/opt folder!
I've said it before - and I'm not the first or last to notice - HP-UX is a *train wreck* of a unix. HP puts Fibre Channel controllers that are necessary for the system to BOOT in the
--Charlie
The biggest problem with Linux is, in my opinion, the fact that people try to solve all the problems of the world with a single solution. Red Hat is a worthwhile cause, but I don't think a single distro can handle every possible use of Linux. I thought Linux was about choice. In that case, there should be many smaller distributions aimed at specific (or at least more specific) purposes.
No, I'm not a luser, nor am I a newbie. I know that there are countless distros out there, which fit on a single floppy, six CDs, and everything in between. (I've purchased so many distributions for myself and for others that I'm drowning in Linux CDs.) But everybody and his uncle uses Red Hat. (I personally like SuSE a LOT better, because it is far better organized in my opinion.)
Many common problems make the file system layout and package management suck. I don't mean to start a flamewar, but this problem is far smaller on FreeBSD, where the file system layout is a lot better organized than that of a Red Hat Linux system. (It's even better organized than a SuSE system.) The ports and packages collection, which works through Makefiles, makes installation and removal of many programs very easy, with dependency checks. Unless I'm imagining things, it does find dependencies that you install manually, as long as they're where the system expects them. However, glitches still exist, mainly in the removal of software, that require user intervention to remove some remaining files and directories.
When it comes down to it, I think that package management systems--whether they're Debian's system, RPMs, or the *BSDs' ports and packages--are supposed to serve as a shortcut for the system administrator, who still knows how to manage programs manually. The Linux community seems to have forgotten this, and expect package management to be a flawless installation system for any user with any amount of experience. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and it would be extremely difficult, maybe impossible, to make such a system. I believe this doesn't matter.
Skilled admins need control and flexibility over their programs. This is especially true for critical servers, but also applies to workstations. If the setup they want can be achieved with a package manager, they'll use it. If not, they can opt to build the program from source, or, if this installation takes place often, they might make their own package, perhaps customizing paths or configuration files for site-specific purposes. A well-organized hierarchy is very important.
Novice users are very different. They just want to install this thing called Linux from the CD and surf the web or burn some MP3s. For them, the solution isn't a great package management system, because a novice user probably doesn't know where to obtain programs. In some cases, there are hundreds of similar programs to choose from--novices can't handle all that choice! The solution for them is a distro that supports a very specific set of programs, and supports them well:
Finally, I would recommend that in the spirit of giving back to the community, any admin who makes his own packages should submit them back to the developer for distribution to others. (Unless these packages are designed for site-specific purposes, of course.)
Oh yeah, and I almost forgot the obligatory "oh well."
it makes more sense to waste a little space duplicating shared libs and simply install programs into their own directories....
Shared libs are not only about wasting disk space (which we usually have plenty of). They're much more gained from them, namely sharing RAM by mapping common code pages into different processes' address spaces.
Think if you had a duplicate libc in every damned process running in a system.