Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 07:59:51 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: /usr/local vs. /usr/pkg Message-ID: <14902.12119.865132.412874@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <20001212083334.A15613@titan.klemm.gtn.com> References: <14898.33404.356173.963351@guru.mired.org> <14898.31393.228926.763711@guru.mired.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012091347030.88984-100000@turtle.looksharp.net> <200012100904.CAA27546@harmony.village.org> <3A336781.94E1646@newsguy.com> <14899.41809.754369.259894@guru.mired.org> <200012101557.KAA29588@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <14899.43958.622675.847234@guru.mired.org> <20001210120840.C38697@vger.bsdhome.com> <14900.26674.605585.357915@trooper.velocet.net> <20001212083334.A15613@titan.klemm.gtn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com> types: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 12:37:54AM -0500, David Gilbert wrote: > > ... but /usr/pkg supplanting /usr/local is one of the things that I > > like about NetBSD. > /usr/pkg sounds a little bit odd ... ( at least for my ears). > > Why not choose what Solaris uses (/opt) ? I'd prefer /usr/opt. However, the reason not use either one is *because* Solaris uses them. See below. > It would be an advantage, when designing filesystem size of your OS, > that now you would have two completely separate paths /usr and /opt. But it also means you either have another file system where the OS is going to install things, or you have to make (in your words) too large a root file system. > Installing ports in /usr means, having a too large /usr or to mount > a new filsystem under /usr (/usr/local). Mounting an fs under a mounted > fs I dislike much ... I take it you mean "Mounting an fs under a mounted fs other than root ...". But how do you decide what's "too large"? From what I can tell, best practice for first installs these days is to create two very large file systems. Everything installed from the distribution media (or sources) goes on /, and everything else goes in /home. If there isn't going to be anything saved locally, you ignore /home. I would claim that /opt is as bad as /usr/local, for the same reason. It has a history that predates BSDs usage of it for anything, and FreeBSD using it will cause problems for people who think that historical usage is different from installing software that comes with (or through) the OS distribution. My choice (/usr/opt) is bad for the same reason. I don't think /usr/pkg has any use prior to NetBSD using it for installed ports/packages, so it doesn't have that problem. Whether it goes on / or /usr is actually a minor issue. I want packages installed on /usr. If the standard winds up being /opt, I'll just symlink /opt to /usr/opt, and forget it. Likewise, if the standard is /usr/opt, you can symlink /usr/opt to your file system on /opt, and forget it. <mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14902.12119.865132.412874>