Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:46:46 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Confusing error messages from shell image activation Message-ID: <14900.23606.685940.408212@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <14900.21804.426787.246572@guru.mired.org> References: <14898.33404.356173.963351@guru.mired.org> <14898.31393.228926.763711@guru.mired.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012091347030.88984-100000@turtle.looksharp.net> <200012100904.CAA27546@harmony.village.org> <3A336781.94E1646@newsguy.com> <14899.41809.754369.259894@guru.mired.org> <200012101557.KAA29588@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <14899.43958.622675.847234@guru.mired.org> <20001210120840.C38697@vger.bsdhome.com> <14899.47196.795281.662619@zircon.seattle.wa.us> <14899.49294.958909.82912@guru.mired.org> <14899.62738.768609.598990@nomad.yogotech.com> <14899.62189.243395.903919@nomad.yogotech.com> <14900.2598.958785.326648@guru.mired.org> <14900.19591.200496.869754@nomad.yogotech.com> <14900.21804.426787.246572@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I ran mostly DEC boxes until the early 90s, which had all software > > installed in /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin. > > Well, I ran DEC boxes for Dec (at WSE) back in the late 80s and early > 90s, and don't remember anything being in /usr/local that I didn't > drag of the net (or write myself) and install there, on either VAXen > or MIPS boxes. Hmm, trying to dig up memories of the software from that long ago. Software that run a piece of chemistry hardware (a electronic microscope?) sounds right, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. > > > By your own admission, /usr/local wasn't used on v7. So the discussion > > > should turn to when BSD started seeing prebuilt vendor packages to > > > install in /usr/local. > > Late '80s on DEC boxes running Ultrix (which one could argue is one of > > the earliest commercial 'vendor' BSD unices). I don't consider Solaris > > a BSD unix, so it using /opt isn't a valid point, which makes the whole > > concept of '/opt' for BSD packages a moot point. :) > > I wish people would quite acting like moving packages out of > /usr/local meant going to something like /opt. I don't think anyone in > their right mind would suggest that. '/opt', '/usr/pkg', '/whatever-you-want-to-call-it'. You were the one who claimed that Solaris was the first 'vendor' to provide packages, and they used opt. > > Probably the same time-frame for SunOS, although I didn't have > > experience with it until the early 90's. However, if necessary, I can > > try and dig out installation docs for some software which ask to have > > the stuff unpacked in /usr/local. > > I'd certainly be interested in that. It'd be Purify. > Of course, as you yourself said, the argument about tradition is a > sideline. Yep. > The real issue is that ports/packages have one source, and > things that may *not* have a mechanism to move them out of /usr/local > (however badly broken) have another some of us want - quite > legitimately - want to treat those two things differently, and > packages using a directory name that has an established use makes that > difficult. Not true. You can change the source to point to '/usr/mike-likes-it-here', and it *should* work. If it doesn't, then it's borken. :) Fixing broken things is a good thing. Your argument about moving it from /usr/local to show how broken is a good test procedure, but turning it into policy is something completely different. I think the 'tradition' of FreeBSD installing packages in /usr/local is enough to leave things the way they are, especially since non-broken packages allow you to install it somewhere else on *your* system. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14900.23606.685940.408212>