Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 07:51:00 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com> To: Konstantin Chuguev <Konstantin.Chuguev@dante.org.uk> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: People running with LOCALBASE set to something other than /usr/local? Message-ID: <20000823075100.A1471@hamlet.nectar.com> In-Reply-To: <39A3C568.32E686EC@dante.org.uk>; from Konstantin.Chuguev@dante.org.uk on Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:36:56PM %2B0100 References: <14754.2222.927759.462718@guru.mired.org> <20000822084309.D38787@hamlet.nectar.com> <14755.26839.743103.399203@guru.mired.org> <20000823065243.A43477@hamlet.nectar.com> <39A3C568.32E686EC@dante.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:36:56PM +0100, Konstantin Chuguev wrote: > Just wondering: what is the reason of using /opt instead of /usr/local, > apart from Solaris influence? No Solaris influence, actually. Just strlen("/opt") < strlen("/usr/local"). It looks nicer to me. Secondarily to see if a ports behaves when ${LOCALBASE} != /usr/local. > Do you use /usr/local for anything? Nope. -- Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000823075100.A1471>