Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:26:38 -0800 From: Joe Kelsey <joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /usr/local abuse Message-ID: <14899.59134.262811.806345@zircon.seattle.wa.us> In-Reply-To: <20001210113817.D80274@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <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> <14899.54808.947617.700838@zircon.seattle.wa.us> <14899.55273.863236.40012@zircon.seattle.wa.us> <20001210113817.D80274@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien writes: > On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 11:22:17AM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote: > > Basically, /usr/local is for anything the local administration wants to > > officially support. The ports use of this (and by extension, > > pre-compiled ports (packages)) is thus completely justified. > > Do you understandy why NetBSD's Packages install in /usr/pkg ? > What is your position behind that? I have no problem with /usr/pkg. I personally do not see the need for it. I have been arguing with Mike over his historic characterization of /usr/local as being a repository of locally written software, and I think I have proved my point that his characterization is incorrect. This thread is also about a completely separate issue, which is a deficiency in the package command used on FreeBSD. The basic problem with pkg_add et al., as opposed to, for instance, SVR4 pkgadd, is that it does not allow the local administrator to change the installation directory. Most commercial distributions provide a package distribution mechanism which allows the local administrator the choice between the "standard" package installation location, and the ability to override it with a directory of their own choosing. Arguably, the pkg_* commands of FreeBSD are deficient in that they force an installation directory choice on the local administrator. To the extent that NetBSD *forces* the local administrator to use /usr/pkg, I find it contains the same deficiency. If it does not force this, then perhaps FreeBSD should adopt it. I have never used NetBSD, so I cannot comment further on it. My argument is solely that Mike is incorrect in characterizing /usr/local as a place for locally written software. I also find that his table is incorrect historically. The table he presented conveys his *wish* for administrative purposes and his attempts to justify it by some sort of historical argument do not hold water. He is correct in that it does make sense for a local administrator to *want* to be able to separate packages by the need to maintain source, etc. I can agree with him on that point. He is just wrong about the history of the evolution of the file system hierarchy. /Joe 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?14899.59134.262811.806345>