Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:53:35 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Konstantin Chuguev <Konstantin.Chuguev@dante.org.uk> Cc: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: People running with LOCALBASE set to something other than /usr/local? Message-ID: <14755.58735.734025.505698@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <39A3C568.32E686EC@dante.org.uk> 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
Konstantin Chuguev writes: > "Jacques A. Vidrine" wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:01:59AM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: > > > Um - why? If you removed the setting of LOCALBASE in that case, you > > > wouldn't change the disk layout at all. > > I prefer installed executables, data files, and man pages to refer to > > /opt. Duh. Ok, that makes sense. I overlooked the man pages. > Just wondering: what is the reason of using /opt instead of /usr/local, > apart from Solaris influence? Do you use /usr/local for anything? I use /usr/opt instead of /opt. I use /usr/local for things that are local additions to the system, as opposed to things that are gotten through freebsd. They have different update & backup policies, which is why they were separated. Ports got moved instead of local because ports has a mechanism for moving them, whereas local things may or may not have that. <mike 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?14755.58735.734025.505698>