From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Sep 8 14:49:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA07379 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 14:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roguetrader.com (brandon@cold.org [206.81.134.103]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA07368 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 14:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (brandon@localhost) by roguetrader.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA20938; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:50:21 -0600 (MDT) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:50:21 -0600 (MDT) From: Brandon Gillespie To: jbryant@tfs.net cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: what do you think ... should/could ports move to -> /usr/local/ports ? In-Reply-To: <199709081852.NAA01461@argus.tfs.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Jim Bryant wrote: > In reply: > > On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Brian Mitchell wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Lutz Albers wrote: > > > > > > what about /usr/contrib like bsd/os? > > > > its no different than /usr/local, just a different name. > > > > I think the main issue here is that people feel /usr/local/ should be a > > different fs (I agree), > > but many feel its unclean to mount from anything other than root. > > Suggestion: mount it on /local, and symlink /usr/local to /local.. > > ACK!@# E-V-I-L!!!!!!! E-V-I-L!!!!!!! E-V-I-L!!!!!!! E-V-I-L!!!!!!! 8) > This would require all that much more hacking to makefiles and include > files, not to mention those lame few proggies that hardcode paths in > the source code... > > Besides, assuming /usr don't come up, why bother having /local come > up, as almost everything in /local will reference the symlink > /usr/local... Hmm, true... actually, I was thinking of just having /usr/local as a link there for posterity and familiarity, but having the programs use /local as the prefix. I guess basically what i'm getting at is that to place these in a filesystem off root, we shouldn't use an existing name, as then people would assume the rest follows existing conventions (i.e. /opt) which would not be the case, thus a different name would be in order, and the first thing to pop into my head was simply /local :) However, there are problems that would arise. So perhaps simply a completely different prefix? Or even /local alone, seperate from /usr/local, then put all ports/packages and port/package info in /local and leave /usr/local for non ported/packaged stuff *shrug* perhaps /pkg (preferred over /ports) This is probably a moot discussion tho, it implies too many changes to very common but not official ''standards''... -Brandon Gillespie