Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:39:00 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/local abuse Message-ID: <14899.59876.991445.928124@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <14899.59134.262811.806345@zircon.seattle.wa.us> 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> <14899.59134.262811.806345@zircon.seattle.wa.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joe Kelsey <joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us> types: > 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. I think I've proved that you completely misunderstood my characterization of /usr/local. I also think that I proved Brandon's characterization of using /usr/local for packages as "steeped in decades of tradition" as false. > 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. I don't think I ever claimed that it was solely for locally *written* software. I claimed it was for locally *maintained* software. There's a difference. I don't know where you got the idea that the table had any kind of historic representation. Nothing in it represents *history*. It describes the world as it is now. If you feel that something in it is incorrect, please say what it is instead of making vague statements about the entire table. <mike 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?14899.59876.991445.928124>