From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Nov 28 07:44:21 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id HAA13142 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 07:44:21 -0800 Received: from sivka.carrier.kiev.ua (sivka.carrier.kiev.ua [193.125.68.130]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id HAA12873 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 07:41:09 -0800 Received: from elvisti.kiev.ua (uucp@localhost) by sivka.carrier.kiev.ua (Sendmail 8.who.cares/5) with UUCP id QAA14255 for hackers@freebsd.org; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 16:31:16 +0200 Received: from office.elvisti.kiev.ua (office.elvisti.kiev.ua [193.125.28.33]) by spider2.elvisti.kiev.ua (8.6.12/8.ElVisti) with ESMTP id PAA06892 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 15:02:29 +0200 Received: (from stesin@localhost) by office.elvisti.kiev.ua (8.6.12/8.ElVisti) id PAA09617; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 15:02:28 +0200 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 15:02:28 +0200 From: "Andrew V. Stesin" Message-Id: <199511281302.PAA09617@office.elvisti.kiev.ua> To: hackers@freebsd.org Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Thoughts on ports&packages policies and FS layout (was: Re: More nits) Organization: Electronni Visti InformAgency (ElVisti) X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2+] Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk Hello Peter da Silva, : > How do you handle namespace collisions? I would agree with this : > iff the utilities were installed somewhere outside of the standard : > PATH (i.e. in /usr/gnu/bin). : If they're installed from packages they'd be in /usr/local/bin. : I personally like having a /usr/gnu/bin myself. I vote for "/usr/gnu/bin" for the stuff from FSF which didn't come in a base distribution, too. : > My biggest complaint with the ports stuff right now is the way it : > scribbles all over /usr/local. Even worse, it isn't consistent (e.g. : > binaries installed in /usr/bin and support stuff under /usr/local/lib). : > /usr/local should be HANDS OFF to the vendor-supplied software, something : > I consider "ports" to be. Seems to be a reasonable observation. It really may be annoying. Suppose a (very realistic!) scenario: I'm installing a binary package, it sits itself down in /usr/local/*. But I'm _not_ satisfied with it and want to do some research and more experiments myself; I go get a "port" stuff (I mean the Makefile + patch-* things) as a starting point, and do some mine own experimental changes. Then what? `make install`, and the original binary package gets crippled. Bad. Or shall I create /usr/_My_local,really!/* to distinguish between what bits came from FreeBSD porters team and what are from me myself? :-) : > The ports software should be configured to install into either the : > standard directory tree, or into a seperate /usr/ports hierarchy. : I'd buy that. I like organizing things that way myself. But it's certainly : not what I'd call a super-high priority. a) It seems to me that this "two-faced" approach will fail totally due to a bunch of hard-compiled pathnames in many tools. b) I disagree with your last point about priorities -- the change itself is simple, it's a good time for it ('cause a release just went out recently, there's plenty of time to do it), and it will _really_ make life simplier for me, mr. Andrew Avg. User -- I'll be able to switch between mine and ported bits more easily and the default location of my local stuff will be mine back. Wouldn't Mr. Asami mind considering a change of a default port subtree $PREFIX, leaving /usr/local back to me? :-) -- With best regards -- Andrew Stesin. +380 (44) 2760188 +380 (44) 2713457 +380 (44) 2713560 An undocumented feature is a coding error.