Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:37:40 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Evan Champion <evanc@synapse.net> Cc: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: what do you think ... should/could ports move to -> /usr/local/ports ? Message-ID: <19970908093740.17864@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <3412C092.57D67DA9@synapse.net>; from Evan Champion on Sun, Sep 07, 1997 at 10:56:18AM -0400 References: <19970907160423.39071@klemm.gtn.com> <3412C092.57D67DA9@synapse.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 07, 1997 at 10:56:18AM -0400, Evan Champion wrote: > Andreas Klemm wrote: >> I'm just repartitioning my system. When thinking about a new >> disk layout and partitioning I came to the conclusion, that >> putting the ports collection to /usr/local/ports would be cleaner, >> than using /usr/ports. > > I find that /usr/local/ is overused as it is. Agreed. > You could move it to /usr/local/ and make a symlink, or make a new > slice for /usr/ports/. /usr/local or its replacement should possibly be a separate file system. I find the idea of mounting file systems on non-root file systems aesthetically displeasing. How about (shudder) following the System V example and mounting them on /opt? Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970908093740.17864>