Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:36:02 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: "Andrew Reilly" <areilly@bigpond.net.au> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Confusing error messages from shell image activation Message-ID: <14900.26562.225323.169276@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <20001211163133.A19495@gurney.reilly.home> References: <14899.43958.622675.847234@guru.mired.org> <20001210120840.C38697@vger.bsdhome.com> <14899.47196.795281.662619@zircon.seattle.wa.us> <14899.49294.958909.82912@guru.mired.org> <14899.62738.768609.598990@nomad.yogotech.com> <14899.62189.243395.903919@nomad.yogotech.com> <14900.2598.958785.326648@guru.mired.org> <14900.19591.200496.869754@nomad.yogotech.com> <14900.21804.426787.246572@guru.mired.org> <14900.23606.685940.408212@nomad.yogotech.com> <20001211163133.A19495@gurney.reilly.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Fixing broken things is a good thing. Your argument about 'moving it > > from /usr/local to show how broken' is a good test procedure, but turning > > it into policy is something completely different. > > > > I think the 'tradition' of FreeBSD installing packages in /usr/local is > > enough to leave things the way they are, especially since non-broken > > packages allow you to install it somewhere else on *your* system. > > You have to admit that the "prebuilt packages" argument is > a pretty good one. I don't used many myself (only cvsup, I > think), but if it's true that the distribution CDs ship these > pre-built programs, rather than the distfiles, then they should > be built in such a way as to minimise the amount of "built-in > policy". I don't think anyone is agreeing. > Building for /usr/pkg (which can be sym-linked to > /usr/local) does seem to solve that problem, without having to > invent a mechanism for tweaking compiled-in paths after the > fact. I don't see how building it for /usr/local or /usr/pkg by default changes things. If things are built for a default location, they'll be broken no matter where they go. > The default setup for locally built ports can stay exactly as it > is. I don't agree that we need to differentiate between 'pre-built' ports and 'locally built' ports. As a matter of fact, I think differentiating only confuses things. If the 'port' is broken w/regard to not using it's 'base', then it's broken, no matter where it's installed to. I think time would be better spent fixing this brokeness rather than arguing where the default should be. :) Nate 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?14900.26562.225323.169276>