Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:01:05 +0100 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org> To: Jim Trigg <jtrigg@huiekin.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A modest hier proposal Message-ID: <20190913090105.07aaa44d3d8fd73329c999a6@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <ff67e062-a559-388c-cf91-edd83a278232@huiekin.org> References: <ff67e062-a559-388c-cf91-edd83a278232@huiekin.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 23:50:40 -0400 Jim Trigg <jtrigg@huiekin.org> wrote: > I recommend we reframe the directory structure. Since I'm sure I will > get no support for merging the existing / and /usr trees to put all base > items in / (/bin, /etc, /lib, /libexec, /share, /sbin), There's a lot to be said for doing that, but I too doubt it will ever happen. Then again similarly drastic things have happened. > I'm suggesting the following: > > /usr/local -> /pkg That would make sense as part of eliminating /usr, otherwise I see no real point. > Explicitly define /opt for third-party software that is not in > packages/ports. There is no way to enforce or even encourage use of it, sure an empty hierarchy could be shipped but it wouldn't get used reliably. > Explicitly define /local for locally developed software that has not > been packaged as a port/package. Same problem. As sysadmin you are of course perfectly free to attempt to impose /local and /opt - I've seen similar things attempted with varying success. The most successful approach involved making them group maintained rather than root maintained. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190913090105.07aaa44d3d8fd73329c999a6>