/lib, /usr/lib, /usr/local/lib

[Guy Harris]

> 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