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.
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?
Roger Miller
Lee Wilson and Associates
Hi Roger,
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.
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?
As a long term Linux user I can say:
I have my sources in:
/home/neteler/src
When compiling with
./configure
make install
the binaries will go into:
/usr/local/grass5
and the grass5 startup script into:
/usr/local/bin
The grassdata is for me:
/home/neteler/grassdata5
(not to be specified anywhere during compilation, but on GRASS startup).
I would not put the grass database into /usr if you are not a team
(because you have to manage the permissions).
This are working settings (tested for years now).
Cheers
Markus
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@jps.net>