[Bug 1075860] [NEW] Add /opt/bin to PATH

[Chris Carlin]

Public bug reported:

I propose that /opt/bin should be added to the default PATH in Ubuntu.

A fine discussion about this, and why Debian doesn't do it, is found
here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=45096

In short, the FHS suggests that in some situations packages can/should
install content into directories under /opt, particularly in cases of
third party software installed by administrators. A few packages already
do this, including google-chrome, and it just seems like a good idea to
keep the third party stuff isolated.

However, this raises the problem of including their executables in PATH,
which obviously can't anticipate /opt/<package>/bin for every possible
package. One compromise is to include /opt/bin in PATH and allow
packages to symlink their executables there.

Let me stop and emphasize that FHS specifies /opt/bin as a special case.
This isn't "add to PATH for every use case" it's "add to PATH for a
certain case singled out in the FHS."

Currently, without /opt/bin in PATH, those packages are symlinking out
to /usr/bin or the FHS-breaking /usr/local/bin. Either way, this
compromises the motivation of keeping /opt isolated and organized.

>From the thread linked above it seems Debian doesn't include /opt/bin
because their focus on free software gives them the goal of getting
everything into official and free packages. They almost wish to
discourage third party packages entirely. Ubuntu's focus is different,
though, and it seems pragmatic to allow third parties this method of
getting executables into PATH.

It seems to me that this would be a trivial change with no downside for
Ubuntu, but plenty of upside in terms of Ubuntu's interaction with third
parties and their software.

** Affects: base-files (Ubuntu)
     Importance: Undecided
         Status: New

** Affects: base-files (Debian)
     Importance: Unknown
         Status: Unknown

** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #45096
   http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=45096

** Also affects: base-files (Debian) via
   http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=45096
   Importance: Unknown
       Status: Unknown

** Description changed:

  I propose that /opt/bin should be added to the default PATH in Ubuntu.
  
  A fine discussion about this, and why Debian doesn't do it, is found
  here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=45096
  
  In short, the FHS suggests that in some situations packages can/should
  install content into directories under /opt, particularly in cases of
  third party software installed by administrators. A few packages already
  do this, including google-chrome, and it just seems like a good idea to
  keep the third party stuff isolated.
  
  However, this raises the problem of including their executables in PATH,
  which obviously can't anticipate /opt/<package>/bin for every possible
  package. One compromise is to include /opt/bin in PATH and allow
  packages to symlink their executables there.
  
+ Let me stop and emphasize that FHS specifies /opt/bin as a special case.
+ This isn't "add to PATH for every use case" it's "add to PATH for a
+ certain case singled out in the FHS."
+ 
  Currently, without /opt/bin in PATH, those packages are symlinking out
  to /usr/bin or the FHS-breaking /usr/local/bin. Either way, this
  compromises the motivation of keeping /opt isolated and organized.
  
  From the thread linked above it seems Debian doesn't include /opt/bin
  because their focus on free software gives them the goal of getting
  everything into official and free packages. They almost wish to
  discourage third party packages entirely. Ubuntu's focus is different,
  though, and it seems pragmatic to allow third parties this method of
  getting executables into PATH.
  
  It seems to me that this would be a trivial change with no downside for
  Ubuntu, but plenty of upside in terms of Ubuntu's interaction with third
  parties and their software.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Foundations Bugs, which is subscribed to base-files in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1075860

Title:
  Add /opt/bin to PATH

Status in “base-files” package in Ubuntu:
  New
Status in “base-files” package in Debian:
  Unknown

Bug description:
  I propose that /opt/bin should be added to the default PATH in Ubuntu.

  A fine discussion about this, and why Debian doesn't do it, is found
  here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=45096

  In short, the FHS suggests that in some situations packages can/should
  install content into directories under /opt, particularly in cases of
  third party software installed by administrators. A few packages
  already do this, including google-chrome, and it just seems like a
  good idea to keep the third party stuff isolated.

  However, this raises the problem of including their executables in
  PATH, which obviously can't anticipate /opt/<package>/bin for every
  possible package. One compromise is to include /opt/bin in PATH and
  allow packages to symlink their executables there.

  Let me stop and emphasize that FHS specifies /opt/bin as a special
  case. This isn't "add to PATH for every use case" it's "add to PATH
  for a certain case singled out in the FHS."

  Currently, without /opt/bin in PATH, those packages are symlinking out
  to /usr/bin or the FHS-breaking /usr/local/bin. Either way, this
  compromises the motivation of keeping /opt isolated and organized.

  From the thread linked above it seems Debian doesn't include /opt/bin
  because their focus on free software gives them the goal of getting
  everything into official and free packages. They almost wish to
  discourage third party packages entirely. Ubuntu's focus is different,
  though, and it seems pragmatic to allow third parties this method of
  getting executables into PATH.

  It seems to me that this would be a trivial change with no downside
  for Ubuntu, but plenty of upside in terms of Ubuntu's interaction with
  third parties and their software.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/base-files/+bug/1075860/+subscriptions