Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 18:06:14 -0800 (PST) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@phone.net> To: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: executable scripts Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9901021754370.11212-100000@guru.phone.net> In-Reply-To: <19990102163613.A28157@wopr.caltech.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2 Jan 1999, Matthew Hunt wrote: > If you're new to Unix, and setting up a FreeBSD system for your own > personal use, you may not see much difference between (b) and (c) > since you're the only user on your machine. But it's a good habit > to get into to think about whether your changes are to suit yourself, > or (hypothetically) all of your users. That can help you to decide > whether to put software and scripts in ~/bin or /usr/local/bin, > whether to change configuration files in /etc/foorc or ~/.foorc, > and so forth. It's a good habit to get into early, even if it makes > little practical difference. As an aside from someone not new to Unix, I don't put commands in /usr/local on FreeBSD by hand - because /usr/ports builds into it. Instead, I put them in an install directory on a custom fs, and symlink the commands back to /usr/local/bin. The idea is to have a clean break between programs from the FreeBSD distribution, and everything else. This means that doing OS upgrades doesn't touch anything that isn't part of the distibution, and that you can rebuild all of /usr from the distribution. That was the original point of /usr/local - that it held locally built/maintained software. However, with /usr/ports building to it, it just aanother level of distribution binaries at this point. Personaly, I'd prefer if the ports/packages collection built to /usr/bin, but there's probably a reason for not doing it that way. <mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9901021754370.11212-100000>