From: pSeries AIX Geek (aixgeek@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 20:02:40 EST
I like the fact that IBM now recognizes that a lot of
apps install to /opt, and so at AIX 5, they create a
hd10opt LV (and create a /opt).
It became an administrative nightmare when my last
employer insisted on automounting (and root didn't
have write privileges) /usr/local across all machines
-- kind of defeated the purpose! Now, it did make for
having a "common" /usr/local on each system -- but the
naming convention was ... unconventional.
It seems that most 3rd party apps get put in /opt and
"tools" get put into /usr/local. Of course, the line
between "tool" and "app" is very fine.
- pAG
--- "Sheets, Jerald" <JSHeets@OLOLRMC.COM> wrote:
> Actually,
>
> On most all Unixes (except AIX) /usr/local
> is the standard for
> installed applications. This includes the BSD
> family of which AIX is a
> child.
>
> There was an /opt standard on Solaris for
> several years primarily
> for the reason you cite (export via NFS), but they
> too have preferred
> /usr/local in recent releases. I'm finding also
> that most if not all
> Linuxes are looking to /usr/local as well. This has
> been specified by the
> Linux Standards Base http://www.linuxbase.org
> consisting of more than 25
> industry giants including IBM and Oracle.
>
> The reason I say all that is to say this:
>
> Of the sixteen or so third-party *.tar.gz
> applications I've
> installed recently over 4.3.3 or 5L, they have *ALL*
> been tarballed as an
> install to /usr/local. To put them elsewhere (via
> --prefix) would be to
> install them in other their intended directory.
>
> Being a relative newcomer to the AIX crew
> (in comparison to some of
> you folks here--I've got 7 years AIX), I've tended
> toward obtaining software
> from BULL or UCLA just to keep it in the SMIT *.bff
> packaging scheme.
> However, most any other package I've had to install,
> I've just let the
> package dictate it's location (which most often
> tends toward /usr/local)
>
> What do some of you vets see as the primary downfall
> of management of
> packages over /usr/local rather than other
> locations, is this prdominantly
> an NFS-shared situation, or speaking in general, and
> what are your
> practices?
>
> Thanks.
> Jerald M. Sheets
> Sr. UNIX Systems Administrator
> Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center
> 225-765-8734
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pSeries AIX Geek [mailto:aixgeek@YAHOO.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:00 PM
> To: aix-l@Princeton.EDU
> Subject: Re: Common shared filesystem
>
>
> /usr/common or /usr/shared is the standard I've
> seen.
>
>
> However, I once worked at one
> linguistically-challenged dot-bomb that INSISTED on
> /usr/local as a common, NFS-mounted (and read-only!)
> repository for its 1200 UNIX machines.
>
> It became an administrative nightmare installing
> freeware into /usr/local.
>
> --- "Green, Simon" <SGreen@KRAFTEUROPE.COM> wrote:
> > Our setup is a bit untidy at the moment as we've
> had
> > to integrate three
> > different sites.
> >
> > The standard we've agreed on now is /usr/common on
> > each CWS, kept
> > synchronised with rdist, then maintained on each
> > node with supper, (updated
> > hourly). Each system also has a /user/local
> > filesystem, for anything
> > specific to that system.
> >
> > These filesystems contain executables of all sorts
> > and configuration files.
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Wed Apr 09 2008 - 22:16:29 EDT