Can programs installed under /opt be safely symlinked into /usr/local/bin, which is already in the PATH by default in Ubuntu and other Linux distros?

Alternatively, is there some reason to create a separate /opt/bin and add that to the PATH, as in this answer: Difference between /opt/bin and /opt/X/bin directories?

1 Answer 1


There is a difference between /opt and /usr/local/bin. So just symlinking binaries from one to another would be confusing. I would not mix them up.

/opt is for the installation of add-on application software packages, whereas the /usr/local directory is for the system administrator when installing software locally (with make and make install). /usr/local/bin is intended for binaries from software installed under /usr/local.

According to the File Hierarchy Standard, the correct way would be to add /opt/<package>/bin to the $PATH for each individual package. If this is too painful (when you have an uncountable number of /opt/<package>/bin direcories for example) then you (the local administrator) can create symlinks from /opt/<package>/bin to the /opt/bin directory. This can then be added to the users $PATH once.

  • Eh, why? /usr/local/bin is for the system administrator's use. If the admin wants to install software in /opt and create links for it under /usr/local, that's perfectly cromulent. Dec 8, 2015 at 22:55
  • @Gilles Of course he can, he can do whatever he wants, he's the system administrator. But best practice would be to keep them separate.
    – chaos
    Dec 9, 2015 at 6:40
  • Okay, so it sounds like this is more an issue of standard convention than anything else. I was a bit weirded out by the lack of symmetry "There is a difference between /opt and /usr/local/bin" as opposed to than "...between /opt and /usr/local" or "...between /opt/bin and /usr/local/bin", but after getting to the end I suspect it was meant as a way to combine /opt/bin and /opt/.../bin. If so, I wonder if the wording could be improved. Dec 11, 2015 at 1:27
  • 1
    @chaos You write that, according to FHS, /opt/package/bin/ or at least /opt/bin/ should be added to $PATH. I read through the posted reference and it does say a lot about how to structure /optand what to have inside there but I could not find a confirmation that any of those directories under /opt should be added to $PATH. Could you maybe elaborate how you came to that conclusion? Cheers
    – vic
    May 3, 2016 at 11:54
  • @vic The same reason you would put any other /whatever/bin directory to $PATH -- so you can invoke the executables without typing the full path every time. Oct 5, 2017 at 13:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.