From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Nov 11 15:14:10 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from guru.phone.net (guru.phone.net [216.240.39.120]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A6A6714C9E for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:14:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mwm@phone.net) Received: (qmail 3164 invoked by uid 100); 11 Nov 1999 23:14:05 -0000 From: Mike Meyer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14379.19900.963634.387520@guru.phone.net> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:14:04 -0800 (PST) To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ldconfig finding libraries, but ld is not. In-Reply-To: <19991111144938.B69565@pinky.plambert.net> References: <14378.28246.28493.440833@guru.phone.net> <199911112213.RAA34417@server.baldwin.cx> <14379.17630.340446.163663@guru.phone.net> <19991111144938.B69565@pinky.plambert.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 3) "Acadia" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`;h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Paul M . Lambert writes: ;->> 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. ;->Ports are not provided by the OS. Neither are packages. You're arguing semantics. Ports (and packages) come on the CD-ROM that comes with my subscription to FreeBSD. I see complaints about ports failing to build or function properly regularly on a mail list @freebsd.org, and nobody complains that it's inappropriate. I won't argue that they are part of the OS - if you won't argue that they aren't part of the FreeBSD distribution (in fact, a major part as far as I'm concerned.) ;->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's the responsibility of the people who have commit access to the *ports* tree. That's why problem reports about ports go to freebsd-ports! ;->It belongs in /usr/local. I don't agree. Things being maintainted and supported locally belong in /usr/local. Ports and packages come on the distribution, and you go back to the same channels for support as you do for core parts of that distribution. ;->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. I'm sorry, but if you believe that optional parts of the distribution belong in /usr/local, the sendmail clearly belongs there: bash-2.03$ grep -i sendmail /etc/make.conf # To avoid building sendmail NO_SENDMAIL= true bash-2.03$ ;->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. I understand that. My problem isn't that everything isn't shoved into /usr. My problem is that the standard name space for locally-supported packages has been coopted by part of the FreeBSD distribution. I'd be equally happy if it were /opt, /packages, /usr/packages, or something similar (/lets/make/mike/type/a/lot would make me unhappy, mind you :-). I'm not pushing for that to change - I realize how much work it would be - but I'm going to exercise the option to complain about it if an appropriate moment comes up and I've been bitten by it recently.