Software installation opinions needed

[Dave Sill]

[Followup redirected to comp.unix.admin.]

In article <25908 at shamash.cdc.com>, ddh at hare.cdc.com (dd horsfall x-4622) writes:
>
>Is there a "convention" (or even a "standard", who knows) which defines
>the difference in content between  /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin,
>/usr/new, /usr/etc, /usr/5bin, /usr/sbin ... and so forth, all the 
>combinations that start with / and end with bin or lib?

Nothing formal, but the UNIX System Administration Handbook (Nemeth,
Snyder, & Seebass) has a chart on page 41 that lists a bunch of these.
For example:

    /bin
        commands needed for minimum system operability
    /usr/bin
        executable files
    /usr/local/bin
        local software (BSD) executables
    /usr/new
        new software that will soon be supported (BSD)
    /usr/etc
        where Sun puts things that everyone else puts in /etc

>the usual (for us) stuff: program binary, man pages, example problems, 
>installation verification data; for each of these, do we
>a) recommend a particular directory for its installation?
>b) leave it up to each site/purchaser to figure out for themselves
>   what's best for their configuration?
>c) Some combination -- recommended location for those who don't want to
>   think too hard about it, guidelines for the rest?

Suggest a default, but allow the installer to either specify an
alternate when running your installation script, or tell them how to
edit the script itself.

>Software installation: should we
>a) _Move_ the program binary to a place where people expect to find such
>   things (i.e., something that's probably already in their $path) ?

Probably a good idea.

>b) Recommend adding a new directory to the $path?

Nah, too much of a hassle, and PATH's are getting too long.

>c) _Leave_ the binary in a product/version catalog, but build a link to
>   it from the "preferred" place in the path?  Hard or soft link?

Why?  What good does the redundant link do?

>How many of your third-party (i.e., not vendor-supplied) products fall
>into the above categories.  Which do you prefer?

Most seem to take path b), but I find it annoying; not as an
administator, but as a user.  I'm sick of having to fiddle with
.logins, .profiles, and .bashrcs on my various systems every time I
install a new commercial product.  I don't mind, for example, having
to create /usr/frame to install FrameMaker, but why don't they install
the `maker' script in /usr/bin rather than force people to cd to
/usr/frame and run bin/maker or add /usr/frame/bin to their PATH and
create an FMHOME environment variable?

>Did someone provide
>an installation script (or even document) that would be an
>exemplary model for us to follow?  If so, would you send me a copy?

I generally like the way DEC installs go, using the utility `setld'.
It allows installations from tape/cdrom or disk files, allows
installations to be reversed (a *very* nice feature), can produce a
list of installed software, etc.  Unfortunately, only DEC has it.

>Are there any specific "things" that an install script did that 
>particularly annoyed you?  In other words, complete this sentence:
>"Whatever you do, DON'T DO THIS..."

There are zillions of "Don't do's", but in general, don't create or
modify anything without notifying the installer.

>Lastly, what else in this area should I know that I don't even know
>that I don't know (as compared to the things that I know I don't know)?

I don't know.

>( Sidebar: How many of the above directories are local to my site and I 
>don't know any better?

I've seen tham all before, one place or another, so they aren't
site-specific.

>Are any of them specific to certain vendors?

Even /usr/etc, which Nemeth indicates is Sun-specific, is found on
most UNIX systems, it's just that Sun seems to be particularly fond of
it.

>Does
>the list of "standard" or "conventional" directories vary between
>SysV and BSD based systems? )

Yes.  For example, /usr/new and /usr/old are BSD-only and /usr/lbin is
ATT-only.

>Readers with an opinion in the above areas are invited to reply to the
>address in .sig; I can't imagine that a large number of general
>net.people have any interest in this...

I think this is relevent for comp.unix.admin folks.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5 at ornl.gov)		These are my opinions.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems
Workstation Support