Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 15 Feb 1996 22:54:15 -0800 (PST)
From:      asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
To:        lyndon@orthanc.com
Cc:        freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Hystorical Reasons
Message-ID:  <199602160654.WAA01359@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199602160332.TAA00541@multivac.orthanc.com> (message from Lyndon Nerenberg VE7TCP on Thu, 15 Feb 1996 19:32:32 -0800)

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
If you want to talk more about this, please post to ports.

 * The comments about /usr/local/man vs /usr/local/share/man and the
 * libexec vs sbin directories are reasonable. All that's missing is
 * a firm policy statement on where things belong. It seems to me that
 * a modification to the hier(7) man page would suffice. For most
 * non-distribution binaries a simple s;/usr;/usr/local; would work.
 * (tmp being an exception, and there will be a couple of others.)

games?  X11R6?  mdec?

 * Each with an appropriately adjusted hier(7) layout underneath it
 * makes for a nicely consistent filesystem layout. We (CSRG actually)
 * have already proven this works for the /usr tree. I don't think
 * anyone can argue that it won't work for the others.

The reason it is easy to enforce it in the /usr tree is because most
of the `real' work is done in the mk macros.  The same can't be said
for the ports tree.

Also, what are you going to say about the X11R6 tree?  That's
blatantly inconsistent, even more so than the /usr/local tree.

 * intertia. Someone has to do the work. I'm willing to volunteer my
 * time to help clean up the ports tree to make it self-consistent
 * underneath /usr/ports. Who else is?
 * 
 * I'm willing to help with the cleanup provided that any *future*
 * imports to the ports tree have the FS layout convention enforced.

Don't volunteer the effort of future porters as well as people who
upgrade the current ports.

Please open your eyes, this means an extra patch for almost every
single port in the tree.  And a patch that has close to zero chance of 
being accepted by the original source maintainers, as the rest of the
world is using /usr/local/man.

This is an ENORMOUS amount of work.  I'd rather us use that manpower
for something more constructive, than to tie our hands and make future 
porting difficult.

Satoshi



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602160654.WAA01359>