From owner-cvs-ports Thu Apr 25 07:35:19 1996 Return-Path: owner-cvs-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id HAA13455 for cvs-ports-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 07:35:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jhome.DIALix.COM (root@jhome.DIALix.COM [192.203.228.69]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA13414 Thu, 25 Apr 1996 07:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.DIALix.oz.au (peter@localhost.DIALix.oz.au [127.0.0.1]) by jhome.DIALix.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA00981; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 22:33:54 +0800 (WST) Message-Id: <199604251433.WAA00981@jhome.DIALix.COM> X-Authentication-Warning: jhome.DIALix.COM: Host peter@localhost.DIALix.oz.au [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: Paul Richards cc: CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/socks5 Makefile In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:44:36 +0100." <199604251344.OAA22208@cadair.elsevier.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 22:33:53 +0800 From: Peter Wemm Sender: owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >In reply to Peter Wemm who said >> >> Incidently, I'm not happy with this part of the porting rules. >> >> Everything under /usr is supposed to be able to be network shared, and some >> ports put stuff in /usr/local/etc which cannot be shared under any >> circumstances (eg: ssh). >> > >Who says? /usr/local/share is but not /usr. In fact /usr/local/ is >suppose to be, well, local. If you want to share that then deal with it >yourself because it's a site defined area. To throw a bit of fuel on the fire; from "man 7 hier": /etc/ system configuration files and scripts ... /usr/ contains the majority of user utilities and applications ... ... share/ architecture-independent ascii text files ... The "share" directory was intended to mean shareable between different architectures. All the "per-machine" config is documented as belonging somewhere in /etc. /usr/local is deliberately vaguely defined.. It says just "local", not "per-machine". This can mean anything from "local to the machine", to "local to the site" to "local to FreeBSD", etc. >On the flipside, there's kind of a FreeBSD layout imposed on /usr/local >for those who wish to make use of it and perhaps some re-organisation might >be made to allow per host configuration areas for those who want to nfs >export the packages installed there. Yes.. We do kinda "impose" a layout on /usr/local that forces it to be non-shareable, when everything else on /usr is (except perhaps /usr/share/man/cat*). I can live with the imposed layout in order to use the ports, even though I dont like it that much. (I prefer something more like a /wherever/pkgname/{bin|lib|etc|man} type layout :-) IMHO, certain files give me the creeps defaulting to somewhere that I rdist and have to make exclusion lists for. I dont expect I'm the only one who's working towards a replicated cluster type arrangement that doesn't involve logging into every single machine each time there's a trivial change to be made. :-) (And yes, the reason I protested so strongly about the ssh secret host keys last time was because I wasn't paying enough attention and got burned. Since day one, ssh defaulted to /etc for it's config and secret keys, and when I read the patches, it gives no clues that the Makefile (which I skipped) changes it :-( ) >-- > Paul Richards. Originative Solutions Ltd. (Netcraft Ltd. contractor) > Elsevier Science TIS online journal project. > Email: p.richards@elsevier.co.uk > Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 (0)1865 843155 Cheers, -Peter