random question: why does makemkv install to /usr/bin instead of /usr/local/bin?

[Raremann]

hi,

i had a random question about installing makemkv on Linux.

when following the instructions on the forum i noticed that the binary gets installed into /usr/bin/ rather than /usr/local/bin/. i thought that software compiled on your own machine is usually installed in /usr/local/bin/, to keep it separate from distribution managed packages.

So i was just kinda curious what the reasoning behind installing makemkv into /usr/bin/ instead? im kind of a noob, so maybe its really obvious, but i was just curious about it.

Thanks in advance for any clarification.

[Woodstock]

You're going to have to ask Mike about that, but... Most programs I've installed on Linux either installed in the user's own directory, or /usr/bin if they are intended for more than one user.

[tomty89]

i thought that software compiled on your own machine is usually installed in /usr/local/bin

It's not really about where it is compiled, but how it is installed.

If it is being packaged to something that would then be passed to your system package manager for installation (e.g. AUR/makepkg -> pacman on Arch), there is no "problem" for it to built to be installed to /usr(/bin,...) (Actually it is even a problem if a package ships files in /usr/local as a system package manager is not supposed to overwrite stuff in /usr/local.)

/usr/local is more or less meant for what would be installed "manually", such as `make install` run "directly" by a user, or something like that such as a simple `cp`. In other words, it is for installation method that doesn't "notify" your system package manager (but is also not flatpak or alike), so that e.g. in the worst case you can empty it and get back a "proper system" (i.e. files under /usr(/bin,...) would remain "in sync" with the "states" / information your package manager has). Conventionally it is also a way to override something in /usr/bin (e.g. a wrapper script that wraps something with the same name in /usr/bin).

I don't know what's default prefix in the `configure` script of makemkv but there's no reason that it "should be" /usr/local. Rather if e.g. you for god knows what reason decide to `make install`, you are the one who should be responsible for deciding what prefix you should / want to use.

P.S. There's also the not-so-standardized /opt, which *might* be considered "suitable" by some for what you thought /usr/local was for.

[Raremann]

hi, thanks for the explanation :>

Rather if e.g. you for god knows what reason decide to `make install`

i did run make install, because that is what it says i should do in the official installation guide on the forum. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=224

you are the one who should be responsible for deciding what prefix you should / want to use

so what would you recommend here? just leave it in /usr/bin, or reinstall to /usr/local/bin or /opt

[tomty89]

Well in reality it's generally not considered a good idea to install something by running make install yourself. These days people often use flatpak or alike if it is something your distro doesn't ship in its official repo. The more traditional way would be to look for extra repo, or something like AUR package in Arch (basically some kind of build script / "source package" that can be used to make binary package (using your distro's "build system") which would in turn be be feeded to your package manager for installation).

If you really have to make install, /usr/local is probably "the right choice". /opt AFAIK is more typically used by "official binaries" (of closed-source software), such as Spotify built by the Spotify company. (I have to admit that I don't really know the "origin" of /opt.)