From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Feb 15 23:09:51 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id XAA12157
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 23:09:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA12152
          for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 23:09:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA00433; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 23:09:37 -0800
To: Lyndon Nerenberg VE7TCP <lyndon@orthanc.com>
cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Hysterical Raisons 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 15 Feb 1996 19:32:32 PST."
             <199602160332.TAA00541@multivac.orthanc.com> 
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 23:09:36 -0800
Message-ID: <431.824454576@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

> If we're going to mandate a hierarchy convention for /usr/local
> it's going to be pretty tough to exempt /usr/ports from that, isn't
> it?

Uh, I think it's the other way around.  If you took a straw poll of
FreeBSD systems everywhere, I think you'd find that at least 90% of
them populated their /usr/local directories almost *exclusively* from
the ports collection.

With 387 ports currently in the ports collection, 68% of which install
into /usr/local (another 31% go into /usr/X11R6 which, interestingly
enough, leaves 1% unaccounted for :), the impact on that directory by
the ports collection should not be underestimated.  To put it another
way, I think that whatever policy is adopted by *the ports collection*
will become the defacto policy for /usr/local (and perhaps even
/usr/X11R6 someday, after the number of ports tops 1000 :-).

So basically, if Satoshi buys off on a hier(7) style structure for
/usr/local and starts beating ports (or their authors :) into
conformance, it'll happen.

					Jordan