Practical limit to PATH statement length?

[James McDonald]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 23:21, Net Llama! wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Kurt Wall wrote:
> > Also sprach James McDonald:
> > > all,
> > >
> > > Just wondering if linux has an upper limit.... to the $PATH length...
> > > Have been installing apps in /usr/local/<app_name> and PATH is
> > > becoming a war and peace book.
> >
> > There is, but it's something like 1024 or 2048 characters. To shorten
> > PATH, you can create symlinks to the
> > /usr/local/<app_name>/<app_name_binary in /usr/local/bin...
>
> I think the more important issue is why you're installing everything in
> such a non-traditional fashion.

That prompts the question of where the appropriate paths for apps should be? 
... usually I put most of my apps/upgrades in --prefix=/usr except when I 
already have a working version in /usr then I plonk it in /usr/local 
(actually most configure scripts i have used default to /usr/local). Although 
lately I am becoming fond of /opt because it's light on clutter. 

One would hate to go against tradition especially if ones path choices would 
confuse the digital gods and make them wrath over the heretical nature of my 
installation.

I understand there is a movement to a standardized directory layout but I 
haven't found the source of that information yet. Anyone who could point me 
there would be much appreciated. 

-- 
  James McDonald
  MCSE (Windows 2000/NT4), CCNA, CCA, MCP + I
  Registered Linux User #209832
  http://jamesmcd.dns2go.com (home)
  Red Hat Linux release 7.2 (Enigma)
  8:58am  up  1:29,  4 users,  load average: 0.43, 0.25, 0.09