The /usr Versus /usr/local Debate

Should I install XXX in /usr or /usr/local?

This is a question without an obvious answer for an LFS based system.

In traditional Unix systems, /usr usually contains files that come with the system distribution, and the /usr/local tree is free for the local administrator to manage. The only really hard and fast rule is that Unix distributions should not touch /usr/local, except perhaps to create the basic directories within it.

With Linux distributions like Red Hat, Debian, etc., a possible rule is that /usr is managed by the distribution's package system and /usr/local is not. This way the package manager's database knows about every file within /usr.

LFS users build their own system and so deciding where the system ends and local files begin is not straightforward. So the choice should be made in order to make things easier to administer. There are several reasons for dividing files between /usr and /usr/local.

Some people ask why not use your own directory tree, e.g., /usr/site, rather than /usr/local?

There is nothing stopping you, many sites do make their own trees, however it makes installing new software more difficult. Automatic installers often look for dependencies in /usr and /usr/local, and if the file it is looking for is in /usr/site instead, the installer will probably fail unless you specifically tell it where to look.

What is the BLFS position on this?

All of the BLFS instructions install programs in /usr with optional instructions to install into /opt for some specific packages.

Last updated on 2007-04-04 21:42:53 +0200