Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:42:31 +0200 From: Danny Pansters <danny@ricin.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mplayer/mplayer-plugin question Message-ID: <200504222342.32068.danny@ricin.com> In-Reply-To: <20050422182127.GA89355@thought.org> References: <20050420155742.GA83965@thought.org> <AE4D469E6B141341B0344050@utd49554.utdallas.edu> <20050422182127.GA89355@thought.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 22 April 2005 20:21, Gary Kline wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 01:01:30PM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote: > > You should forward this information to the freebsd-ports list. I'm sure > > they'd like to know this, because it's abnormal design. The conf file > > *should* be in /usr/local/etc and there *should* be a pkg-message file > > that tells the installer what to do post-install. > > At least a symlink to /usr/local/etc, and the post-install note. > This brings up the qauestion of the Powers-that-Be creating > symlinks to /etc/local (as a min) and /etc/X11R6. (Should *ANY* > non-system GUI have its conf in /etc/X11R6/etc? ... [*mumble*]) > > gary > No, and in fact it would be better if /usr/X11R6 were a hard link to /usr/local, but this never happened. The /usr/X11R6 came into life because of X IIRC and then got adapted by some X apps and then by gnome. So now we're stuck with two "3rd party software" trees/prefixes. It's indeed bad IMHO, but I'm sure that everytime there were also good reasons to keep the /usr/X11R6 (for one thing: it's a dist). My EUR 0.02, Dan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200504222342.32068.danny>