[GRASSLIST:1234] Re: fitting grass into the Linux file system

[Eric G . Miller]

On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 10:42:19AM -0700, Roger S. Miller wrote:
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I've been running on grass5 beta7 and will be upgrading soon to beta 9
> (er.. beta 10 now, I guess).  I was wondering how other people have fit
> grass into their Linux file systems.
> 
> For the beta7 installation I put the source distribution under
> /usr/local/src and installed the compiled binaries under /usr/grass5b7.
> I also placed the database under /usr/grass5b7.  I want to change that for
> the new distribution.

Under FHS,  /usr is reserved for the "distribution".  User installed
binaries, libes, etc... go in /usr/local or /opt.  Only major problem
with GRASS regarding /usr/local is the creation/deletion of lock files
which should be in /var/lock or /var/local/ or some such (I've created a
symlink in the past from /usr/local/grass5/lock =>
/var/local/grass5/lock in order for lock files to be created under /var
which is was mounted "rw", while /usr was mounted "ro" most of the time.
I now have /usr/local on a separate partition, so I don't worry about
that too much...

> What do you think?  I'm thinking of keeping the source distribution in
> /usr/local/src as before, but installing the binaries under
> /usr/local/grass and the database somewhere under /home.  I think that
> setup is more consistent with "official" recommendations on the Linux file
> system, but will it create major headaches in setup?

That'd be about the default arrangement.  Shared database files could
go in /var I guess (but a /home dir with the set guid bit set works as
well).

-- 
Eric G. Miller <egm2 at jps.net>