Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:28:39 +0100 (BST) From: Mark Valentine <mark@thuvia.demon.co.uk> To: FreeBSD-arch@freebsd.org Cc: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@regency.nsu.ru>, Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> Subject: Re: Why don't we search /usr/local/lib and /usr/local/include by default? Message-ID: <200206191828.g5JISdEI047709@dotar.thuvia.org> In-Reply-To: "David O'Brien"'s message of Jun 19, 10:30am
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: "David O'Brien" <dev-null@nuxi.com> > Date: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 > Subject: Re: Why don't we search /usr/local/lib and /usr/local/include by default? > What is wrong with local/ in BSD.usr.dist? The permissions it applies (and the assumption that you *want* a /usr/local, though that's doesn't affect me). I always used to get bitten after an upgrade by things failing after the permissions on my /usr/local reverted if I forgot to maintain my patch. I don't suffer at the moment because my /usr/local is currently a symlink. The last disaster I had with /usr/local was when I forgot that I had to unpack and install the cvsup binary package instead of using pkg_add (boy, what a mess that made). I routinely disable BSD.local.dist, of course. Cheers, Mark. -- Mark Valentine, Thuvia Labs <mark@thuvia.co.uk> <http://www.thuvia.co.uk>; "Tigers will do ANYTHING for a tuna fish sandwich." Mark Valentine uses "We're kind of stupid that way." *munch* *munch* and endorses FreeBSD -- <http://www.calvinandhobbes.com>; <http://www.freebsd.org>; 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?200206191828.g5JISdEI047709>