Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 09:07:05 -0700 From: Jason Thorpe <thorpej@nas.nasa.gov> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@current1.whistle.com>, GNATS Management <gnats@freefall.freebsd.org>, freebsd-bugs@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/1643: Support for NetBSD in bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <199609191607.JAA05817@lestat.nas.nasa.gov>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 19 Sep 1996 01:34:41 -0700 "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> wrote: > I'm not sure I do. /opt and /usr/opt have very definite Sun-ish > connotations for me, given that Sun was the first I knew to use that > organizational hierarchy, and they used it for something rather > different than /usr/ports (similar, but still different). Hence, I > always preferred to just avoid any potential confusion by giving the > ports collection its own place to live. I considered but rejected > /opt and /usr/opt as candidates when I first wrote that file. Well, most NetBSD'ers I talked to objected to the name "ports", since in the NetBSD world, a "port" is then the kernel is made to run on a new platform :-) Hence the run-time decision in the Makefile ... FreeBSD can keep the name they like, and NetBSD can use the name that like.. Everyone's happy :-) Is that really the only sticking point in the changes being accepted? -- save the ancient forests - http://www.bayarea.net/~thorpej/forest/ -- Jason R. Thorpe thorpej@nas.nasa.gov NASA Ames Research Center Home: 408.866.1912 NAS: M/S 258-6 Work: 415.604.0935 Moffett Field, CA 94035 Pager: 415.428.6939
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609191607.JAA05817>