/lib, /usr/lib, /usr/local/lib
Guy Harris
guy at rlgvax.UUCP
Sun Apr 22 06:50:54 AEST 1984
> If my impression is correct, once upon a time there was /lib, where the
> libraries were kept. Then /usr/lib was added, for 'local stuff that isn't
> part of the standard system, but that we still want to make available to
> everyone on the machine', (well, ok, also for systems whose root disks
> were too small. But that doesn't occur very much these days). For the
> sake of tidiness, I would love to throw away /usr/lib, /usr/bin, and all
> the other 'duplicate' directories. But I can't, because those pathnames
> are built into so many programs.
Well, /usr/lib has been around for almost as long as /lib (if not as long);
it was in V6, along with /usr/bin. I think the root disk size was the real
reason for both of them; the idea was to put the less-used stuff on /usr/bin
and /usr/lib. Also, it makes the two directories smaller, which cuts down
on the directory search time if what you're looking for is in /bin or /lib
(of course, it slows things down if it's in /usr/bin or /usr/lib).
> So now we have /usr/local/lib for 'local stuff that isn't part of the
> standard system, but that we still want to make available to everyone on
> the machine'. Pretty soon that pathname will be compiled into lots of
> programs, too.
> What's next? /usr/local/REALLYlocal/lib?
> Am I missing something, or is this an undesirable trend?
I suspect, since /usr/lib wasn't created for local things, that this isn't
a trend. I see no reason why it'll go beyond /usr/local/*.
Guy Harris
{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
More information about the Comp.unix.wizards
mailing list