From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Apr 24 8:20:19 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from fear.net (fear.net [207.180.208.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FEE37B423 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:20:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from matt@fear.net) Received: from fear.net (matt@fear.net [207.180.208.7]) by fear.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA05707; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:22:02 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:22:02 -0400 (EDT) From: "Thomas (Matt) Barton" To: "Albert D. Cahalan" Cc: Subject: Re: How Is The FeeBSD OS Like and Different Than Say Redhat or Suse LINUX In-Reply-To: <200104240533.f3O5Xr304341@saturn.cs.uml.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > Every FHS-compliant Linux distribution reserves /usr/local for _you_ > to use. It is for _local_ stuff only. > > Doesn't this make sense? If you compile a home-grown or self-ported > app for FreeBSD, where would you put it? I hope you don't dump it in > /usr/local with all the stuff provided by FreeBSD! It looks like you > need a /usr/local/local or /usr/local_I_REALLY_MEAN_IT for this. FreeBSD doesn't install anything into /usr/local unless I tell it to do so, such as installing something from the ports collection. I can delete /usr/local and still have a full functioning server. > Putting emacs under /usr/local is a relic from the days when you'd buy > a real UNIX system without emacs. It made sense, since you were > installing local (your site) additions. Now you get emacs on a CD-ROM > along with the rest of your OS. Which is exactly what I'm doing with the ports collection. The ports collection is no different than me downloading the source code and compiling it myself. The ports collection just makes it very convenient. It is NOT a part of the base install of FreeBSD. It is optional. > Why worry about /etc becoming "cluttered" anyway? You only push the > problem into another location. Now /usr/local/etc is cluttered. If you > simply want to cut the "/bin/ls" output in half, then you might do > better with /1/etc /2/etc /3/etc... but why at all? If performance is > a problem, work on the filesystem. If being hard to glance over is a > problem, you don't gain anything by having more places for junk to > collect. No, my /usr/local/etc isn't cluttered. You're welcome to look at it. There are only two etc's that I have to deal with. One is for base FreeBSD stuff and the other is for software installed from the ports collection. It isn't a big server. It does nothing but file serving, NAT, and a few other services. -- Matt Barton matt@fear.net Indianapolis, IN http://www.mattbarton.ws/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message