Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:49:38 -0800 From: "Paul M . Lambert" <plambert@plambert.net> To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ldconfig finding libraries, but ld is not. Message-ID: <19991111144938.B69565@pinky.plambert.net> In-Reply-To: <14379.17630.340446.163663@guru.phone.net> References: <14378.28246.28493.440833@guru.phone.net> <199911112213.RAA34417@server.baldwin.cx> <14379.17630.340446.163663@guru.phone.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Mike Meyer wrote: > > Yes, but not about what you hoped. Back when I did that kind of thing, > I did a better job than that. Let's see - off the top of my head, > I've network mounted /usr (the Linux solution to this problem), /opt > (the Solaris solution), and used rdist, rsync and perforce to do the > distribution. > > The bottom line is that taking the name people have standardized on > for installing *local* packages and installing system-provided > packages there is a bad thing(TM). None of the solutions I used > suffered from that flaw. > > <mike > Ports are not provided by the OS. Neither are packages. If there's a problem with a port, it's not the responsibility of the people with commit access to the OS source. It's a _port_. It belongs in /usr/local. Items distributed with the OS and maintained by the maintainers of the OS belong in /usr; items specific to each machine (which may not be on the next FreeBSD machine you encounter) belong in /usr/local. Code I've written myself, I put in /usr/local. It seems reasonable that /usr/local/lib doesn't get special treatment, since it doesn't _need_ to have special treatment for everyone. Most Linux distributions want to work perfectly out-of-the-box for everyone, leaving them somewhat less-than-optimal for many situations. In my experience, FreeBSD take the opposite approach: the OS only includes those things necessary to boot on a reasonable selection of hardware, and do basic networking and so forth. All the tools necessary to _add_ to the system are available, but there's very little extra "fluff" in the base distribution. Because this "added" software isn't actually part of the OS, the OS doesn't automatically assume that /usr/local/lib is important. Seems reasonable to me. I'm aware that you disagree, and I don't begrudge you that right. But I would like you to be made aware that there are many of us out here who feel that the FreeBSD way meets our needs better than stuffing absolutely everything that anyone can figure out how to put into an RPM into one directory tree. The method used by many Linux distributions meets other needs. And anyone with any experience with UN*X whatsoever can make both work in either capacity. I see no need to change anything. --plambert -- I hate bombs, terrorism, fear, plans, future and past injustices, manifestos, popular sentiment, ignition, timetables, meetings, and poorly adjusted weasels. A warm hello to my friends and fans in domestic surveillance! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991111144938.B69565>