Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:54:12 -0500
From:      Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>
To:        Andrew Hesford <ajh3@chmod.ath.cx>
Cc:        Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>, questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: OT: Ports & packages don't belong in /usr/local
Message-ID:  <15079.21908.314160.884392@guru.mired.org>
In-Reply-To: <20010425172226.A75534@cec.wustl.edu>
References:  <64957189@toto.iv> <15079.19123.571171.159852@guru.mired.org> <20010425172226.A75534@cec.wustl.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew Hesford <ajh3@chmod.ath.cx> types:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 05:07:47PM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > Andrew Hesford <ajh3@chmod.ath.cx> types:
> You make good points. I think we're the only two guys on this thread
> that make any sense. What we have here is simple matter of preference. I
> think you will concede that packages do NOT belong in the /usr tree
> along with the base system. This is not what /usr was intended for. If
> anything, I'll bet you created a /usr/local/pkg or something similar to
> segregate ports and packages?

Thank you. I already said I put them in /usr/opt, based on my Solaris
experience. If I'd know that NetBSD used /usr/pkgs (I think that's
it), I would have used that. /usr/local/pkg would serve the same
purpose - it segregates package and local name space. Personally, I
want to use the same backup strategy on packages as /usr, so I put
them on the same file system, which makes /usr/<foo> slightly faster.

> People before were arguing that packages belong in /usr, the way linux
> packaging systems dump everything in /usr. This is absolutely
> ridiculous. Surely you conced that the ports are site-specific, albeit
> easily rebuilt in the event of problems. Therefore, the belong somewhere
> in the local tree.

No, I don't think they belong in the local tree. I can see there are
good reasons for people not wanting them in /usr, just as I don't want
them in /usr/local. I can also see why some people would want them in
/usr/local - I'm just not one of them. Once you give them a directory
of their own, you can put them pretty much anywhere with a symlink,
including merging them back into the local tree or /usr. If you dumped
them in /usr, you'd take that ability away from people, which is
sufficient reason to me to *not* do that.

> The difference between you and me, then, is that I don't care to
> separate the stuff I retrieved by hand and the stuff in the ports; you
> do. This is exactly why UNIX is configurable: skillful administrators
> have different beliefs and preferences about where things belong.
> However, I think it is poor practice to dump everything in /usr. No
> ports belong there. Like I said, if there *is* a port that belongs in
> /usr, the committers should pull the port into the contrib tree and
> elminate the port, like was done with OpenSSH.

If you've read the libh project document, you'll notice that changing
the OS distribution so that the OS is bundled as packages - complete
with dependencies - is on the list of things to do. This will provide
the -RELEASE user with flexibility in installing the system that's
currently reserved for people building from sources.

OpenSSH would probably have been part of the base system long ago if
they could have beeen legally distributed from California. OpenBSD
avoided that problem by being located in Canada.

	<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>			http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

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?15079.21908.314160.884392>