Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:35:27 -0500 From: Andrew Hesford <ajh3@chmod.ath.cx> To: "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> Cc: Andrew Hesford <ajh3@chmod.ath.cx>, matt@fear.net, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How Is The FeeBSD OS Like and Different Than Say Redhat or Suse LINUX Message-ID: <20010425113527.A74143@cec.wustl.edu> In-Reply-To: <200104250935.f3P9Zfo179107@saturn.cs.uml.edu>; from acahalan@cs.uml.edu on Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 05:35:40AM -0400 References: <20010424022830.A6085@cec.wustl.edu> <200104250935.f3P9Zfo179107@saturn.cs.uml.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 05:35:40AM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > > 2) Everything in the ports tree (and the packages that represent ports) > > qualifies as site-specific by any stretch of the imagination. > > 3) The Linux Filesystem Standard makes no provsion for self-compiled > > software. > > > > NOTE: FHS 2.1 states that /usr/local "is for use by the system > > administrator when installing software locally." This does NOT mean > > locally compiled (or else they would have said "compiled"), but instead > > has the same meaning as site-specific. > > site-specific: something only your site has > No, site-specific means the presence of the program depends on the site in question. It does not need to be unique to one site, only variable from site to site. Still, if you disagee, we can use the FHS phrase, "installing software locally." Ports software is installed locally. It may be that you don't consider it a local install if you do it during system installation, but I didn't install any ports during system installation; I installed everything afterwards. > > /usr/local must be protected from > > overwriting when the system software is updated. For FreeBSD, this is > > then everything not found in /usr/src, since /usr/src is the source for > > the "system software", and is the only software updated during a system > > update (make world). > > That is not a complete upgrade. > It IS a complete upgrade. The only the that qualifies as "FreeBSD" is the stuff that the FreeBSD team collectively maintains. This is ONLY the stuff in /usr/src. Hence this is what makes up a FreeBSD system. Having select packages (not every port is included) on the CD is like bundling MS Windows with MS Office; you can't reasonably say that Office is a part of Windows. The extra stuff is third-party software, not FreeBSD. Hence it is site-specific. > > Hence the FreeBSD organization is logical even by > > this consideration alone. It is equally logical for linux distributions > > to store everything in /usr, then, because nobody has any idea where the > > linux "system" ends and local software begins. > > The system is what comes on your CD-ROM. As I said, not everything is packaged and stored on CD-ROM. In fact, very few of the ports are included on the main CD (there may be others, but you can only look at what EVERYBODY with a disc is sure to have: the main ISO). Do you mean to tell me that, assuming we value the CD test as a valid benchmark for what is site-specific (and believe me, we don't), some ports are placed in /usr/local because they aren't on CD. This means that certain ports are kept in /usr/local, while their cousins are in /usr. This is absolutely ridiculous. You are forgetting that this is the networked generation. Not everybody even has an ISO available. Today, with broadband and the like, it's easy to do an FTP install without ever touching a CD. Therefore you can't apply any standard to third-party software; the CD test breaks down. -- Andrew Hesford ajh3@chmod.ath.cx To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010425113527.A74143>