Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 02:28:10 -0700 (PDT) From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi Asami) To: nik@iii.co.uk Cc: dillon@backplane.com, jkoshy@FreeBSD.org, bde@zeta.org.au, committers@hub.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc make.conf Message-ID: <199808270928.CAA11841@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: <19980827102000.I6112@iii.co.uk> (nik@iii.co.uk)
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
* It's got nothing to do with ${PREFIX}, and I don't see where you got that
* impression. The fact that (should something like this ever get
* implemented) ${PREFIX} and kern.local_config *might* happen to have the
* same value is completely irrelevant.
Excuse me?
> I quite like the idea of making ${PREFIX} a system wide variable (perhaps
> a sysctl?) that can be queried. Perhaps
:
There is no one value for ${PREFIX} for ports, even on one system.
(It can be /usr/local, /usr/X11R6 or anything else, depending on the
port.)
* The FreeBSD administrator could chose to set kern.local_config to
* /usr/local/etc, /var/etc, /usr/host/etc (which is a scheme I've seen people
* use when /usr/local was NFS mounted), /opt/etc, or whatever, completely
* seperate from whatever value is in ${PREFIX}.
If you meant by above "making the place people store local
configuration files a system wide variable", then I agree. (Although
I still don't understand why it can't be called /etc and be a symlink
to wherever you want.)
Anyway, it has gotten completely away from the original topic
(/etc/make.conf vs. /etc/make.conf.local) so I guess we should stop
here.
Satoshi
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808270928.CAA11841>