Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 16:04:23 +0200 From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: what do you think ... should/could ports move to -> /usr/local/ports ? Message-ID: <19970907160423.39071@klemm.gtn.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi !
I'm just repartitioning my system. When thinking about a new
disk layout and partitioning I came to the conclusion, that
putting the ports collection to /usr/local/ports would be cleaner,
than using /usr/ports.
I think /usr should only contain stuff, that actually belong
to the basic system.
Sometimes there are situations, where I want to recursively
remove the whole ports tree and this lasts so long, that I
use the async mount option. But I don't feel well, since
I then use async on the complete /usr file system... It might
hurt the basic OS if things go wrong (power fail ...).
IMHO best would be to make /usr so large, that it fits the normal
/usr filesystem contents and to put /usr/local into a separate
filesystem together with the ports, which is the ,basis' of
/usr/local.
Would it be a big thing to move it to /usr/local ? Or is
this an religious issue ? Would be fine, if the standard
installation would install the ports into this /usr/local/ports
target ...
Just some thoughts, not a big deal ...
Andreas ///
--
Andreas Klemm | klemm.gtn.com - powered by
Symmetric MultiProcessor FreeBSD
http://www.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/SMP.html
http://www.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/benches.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970907160423.39071>