0

I'm currently having some conflicted doubts about the /usr/local folder according to the standard.

In our application, we currently store our read-only application files in /usr/local/<appname>. While going through the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard it noted that no other directories may be in /usr/local other than those listed.

Another user on Stack Overflow quoted a text specifying that /usr/local/<appname> is supposed to be used, but I'm unable to find this part in the FHS.

Other examples I've seen on my machine are /usr/local/mysql and /usr/local/percona.

Are these simply not in line with the standard? Should we be switching to /usr/local/share/<appname>?

1 Answer 1

1

Are these simply not in line with the standard? Should we be switching to /usr/local/share/<appname>?

Yep, you should. That would make the local installation hierarchically "compatible" with a system installation, which would also not put the data in /usr, but /usr/share.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .