From owner-freebsd-current Tue Sep 24 12:17:24 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA17797 for current-outgoing; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 12:17:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA17725 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 12:17:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eel.dataplex.net by mail.crl.com with SMTP id AA12518 (5.65c/IDA-1.5 for ); Tue, 24 Sep 1996 12:17:11 -0700 Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod [208.2.87.4]) by eel.dataplex.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA23288; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 14:13:57 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: rkw@eel.dataplex.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 14:13:58 -0500 To: Warner Losh From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Subject: Re: install on {Net,Open}BSD vs install on FreeBSD Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Warner Losh : > I'm >not advocating that we use it for the 'make install' phase of the >build process, just that it be available. > >With that clarification, do people generally like or dislike the >proposal? I'm all for it. The more that we can have a common specification for these standard tools, the easier it is to work on multiple machines. Besides, it does not hurt to "do what the author intended" when you are porting something into FreeBSD. It is much easier to fix the permissions by mtree'ing things up front rather than having to edit all the makefiles, etc.