From owner-freebsd-current Sun Dec 10 21:37:26 2000 From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 10 21:37:24 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FED237B400 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:37:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA11361; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:37:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA06886; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:37:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate) From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14900.26562.225323.169276@nomad.yogotech.com> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:36:02 -0700 (MST) To: "Andrew Reilly" Cc: Nate Williams , Mike Meyer , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Confusing error messages from shell image activation 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> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > 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