Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 15:37:10 -0800 From: Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TCP) <lyndon@orthanc.com> To: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: More nits Message-ID: <199511262337.PAA13606@multivac.orthanc.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 25 Nov 1995 19:27:50 CST." <199511260127.TAA28662@bonkers.taronga.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> "Peter" == Peter da Silva <peter@taronga.com> writes:
Peter> a "gnu bonus pack" with all the "standard" gnu tools would
Peter> be good.
How do you handle namespace collisions? I would agree with this
iff the utilities were installed somewhere outside of the standard
PATH (i.e. in /usr/gnu/bin).
Peter> a "tcl/tk bonus pack" is of course required, tcl, tk,
Peter> tcldp, expect, ...
TCL and TK are useful enough that they should be part of the base
distribution (as is perl).
Peter> a "gnu developer" pack, with gmake and so on...
Well, just about everything developer related already *is* GNU. Make
is one of the few that isn't there by default. I'm not a big fan of
GNU make (the 4.4BSD make is much more elegant) and would prefer not
to encourage its use.
Peter> a "gnu X" pack, ghostview, ghostscript, ...
This should probably be a generic "Postscript" package.
Peter> a "mh" pack, with mh, vmail, xmh, ...
As long as xmh will be ignored properly on systems that don't have
X installed.
My biggest complaint with the ports stuff right now is the way it
scribbles all over /usr/local. Even worse, it isn't consistent (e.g.
binaries installed in /usr/bin and support stuff under /usr/local/lib).
/usr/local should be HANDS OFF to the vendor-supplied software, something
I consider "ports" to be.
The ports software should be configured to install into either the
standard directory tree, or into a seperate /usr/ports hierarchy.
--lyndon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511262337.PAA13606>