From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Sep 8 17:24:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA18002 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 17:24:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freebie.lemis.com (gregl1.lnk.telstra.net [139.130.136.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA17994 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 17:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from grog@localhost) by freebie.lemis.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id JAA15778; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:54:10 +0930 (CST) Message-ID: <19970909095410.37753@lemis.com> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:54:10 +0930 From: Greg Lehey To: Brandon Gillespie Cc: jbryant@tfs.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: what do you think ... should/could ports move to -> /usr/local/ports ? References: <199709081852.NAA01461@argus.tfs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.81e In-Reply-To: ; from Brandon Gillespie on Mon, Sep 08, 1997 at 03:50:21PM -0600 Organisation: LEMIS, PO Box 460, Echunga SA 5153, Australia Phone: +61-8-8388-8250 Fax: +61-8-8388-8250 Mobile: +61-41-739-7062 WWW-Home-Page: http://www.lemis.com/~grog Fight-Spam-Now: http://www.cauce.org Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, Sep 08, 1997 at 03:50:21PM -0600, Brandon Gillespie wrote: > On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Jim Bryant wrote: > >> In reply: >>> On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Brian Mitchell wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Lutz Albers wrote: >>>> >>>> what about /usr/contrib like bsd/os? >>> >>> its no different than /usr/local, just a different name. >>> >>> I think the main issue here is that people feel /usr/local/ should be a >>> different fs (I agree), >>> but many feel its unclean to mount from anything other than root. >>> Suggestion: mount it on /local, and symlink /usr/local to /local.. >> >> ACK!@# E-V-I-L!!!!!!! E-V-I-L!!!!!!! E-V-I-L!!!!!!! E-V-I-L!!!!!!! > > 8) > >> This would require all that much more hacking to makefiles and include >> files, not to mention those lame few proggies that hardcode paths in >> the source code... >> >> Besides, assuming /usr don't come up, why bother having /local come >> up, as almost everything in /local will reference the symlink >> /usr/local... > > Hmm, true... actually, I was thinking of just having /usr/local as a link > there for posterity and familiarity, but having the programs use /local as > the prefix. I guess basically what i'm getting at is that to place these > in a filesystem off root, we shouldn't use an existing name, as then > people would assume the rest follows existing conventions (i.e. /opt) > which would not be the case, thus a different name would be in order, and > the first thing to pop into my head was simply /local :) Sure, but that's just a name. /opt has already been in use for some years. Why change the name? Greg