From owner-freebsd-current Sun Dec 10 12:39: 6 2000 From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 10 12:39:02 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from guru.mired.org (okc-65-26-235-186.mmcable.com [65.26.235.186]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D0A6537B400 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:39:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 9546 invoked by uid 100); 10 Dec 2000 20:39:01 -0000 From: Mike Meyer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14899.59876.991445.928124@guru.mired.org> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:39:00 -0600 (CST) To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/local abuse 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> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 10) "Capitol Reef" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`;h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Joe Kelsey 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.