Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 07:11:53 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Dave Glowacki <dglo@SSEC.WISC.EDU> Cc: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami), coredump@nervosa.com, pst@shockwave.com, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/local/libexec vs /usr/local/sbin Message-ID: <6759.824483513@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 16 Feb 1996 08:16:55 CST." <199602161416.IAA24003@tick.SSEC.WISC.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> /usr/local has historically been for software that's local to one
> machine.
Well, I think there are a couple of ways to answer that.
1. "Yes, it's still local to the machine. We still let the user decide for
themselves just what packages and ports to install on a given machine,
after all, and if those same ports and packages happen to have some
convention of their own for organizing /usr/local, well, so what? It's
better than the alternative jumble, yes?"
2. People stopped using /usr/local as a one-machine resource long ago,
just as soon as the first large workstation computing clusters came
into being with users who still wanted to be able to type things like
"/usr/local/bin/elm" and have it just work. The ports and packages
collection is merely the extension of a philosophy that's been popular
for more than a decade.
So you see, no matter what side of the argument you take, *local* or
"local", I win.. :-)
Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6759.824483513>