Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:56:29 +0700 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@regency.nsu.ru> To: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> Cc: FreeBSD-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why don't we search /usr/local/lib and /usr/local/include by default? Message-ID: <20020619195629.B71807@regency.nsu.ru> In-Reply-To: <20020619112509.GA23487@tara.freenix.org>; from roberto@keltia.freenix.fr on Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 01:25:09PM %2B0200 References: <3CF3DAFB.7C9C5108@mindspring.com> <CBBD7FE7-7278-11D6-93A2-0050E4A0BB3F@anarcat.ath.cx> <20020619112509.GA23487@tara.freenix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 01:25:09PM +0200, Ollivier Robert wrote: > According to Antoine Beaupre: > > Ideally, /usr/local should go away. Packages should install in /usr by > > default. But the ports system would need a bigger fence around it to > > expose /usr this way, IMHO. > > If you're advocating something like the FHS used on Linux (which put things > like gnome and the kitchen-sink in /usr/bin), then forget it. I don't want > FreeBSD become another Debian-like monster. Very true. The idea of ports separated from the base is a lot of help when dealing with system upgrade/backup/wipe-out. Heck, I could have simply "rm -rf /usr/local" and get rid of all non-X11 ports I have ;-) And still get the box running. 3-rd party should go in /usr/local (OK, X11 goes in /usr/X11R6), thus leaving /usr populated by the base only. Period. ./danfe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020619195629.B71807>