Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:09:40 -0500 From: Eric Crist <mnslinky@gmail.com> To: "Don O'Neil" <lists@lizardhill.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Updating Bind & OpenSSL on 6.1-Stable/Release Message-ID: <3DA7AD9F-4CCA-4BB4-8C6F-B1A8B430C28D@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <003301c7702e$9375b5c0$0400020a@mickey> References: <005d01c76fdd$e67f33a0$0400020a@mickey> <023801c76fe6$0f78e190$0a0aa8c0@rivendell><008f01c77007$cfca1d80$0400020a@mickey> <460899C7.5040301@daleco.biz> <003301c7702e$9375b5c0$0400020a@mickey>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 27, 2007, at 12:12 AM, Don O'Neil wrote: > If they are 'ports' specificly built for FreeBSD, shouldn't the port > maintainer make them install like the originals were? Makes sense > to me.... > > Or maybe the original install/release needs to be changed to > install the > same as the port. > > It's a pain having to debug where everything went, change config > files, > update startup scripts, make symlinks, etc... When if it were Linux > a simple > RPM install would update it and I'd be done with it. > > Just my observations. The ports tree installs things to the /usr/local/ prefix, to help you keep your ports and base system separate. This is a normal behavior, and has been normal for a lot longer than you have been using FreeBSD. I apologize, but I doubt the developers are going to change the standard behavior just because you got confused the first time you tried to replace a base system component. Look here in section 4.5.2.1: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports- using.html ----- Eric F Crist Secure Computing Networks
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3DA7AD9F-4CCA-4BB4-8C6F-B1A8B430C28D>