Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 09:56:21 +0200 From: Sebastian Lederer <lederer@bonn-online.com> To: Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /etc/init.d/ Message-ID: <33C9DBA5.41C67EA6@bonn-online.com> References: <19970711093543.62687@tversu.ac.ru> <19970711084614.RJ19398@uriah.heep.sax.de> <33C5EFC1.41C67EA6@bonn-online.com> <19970711211440.BV38545@uriah.heep.sax.de> <33C90F7A.41C67EA6@bonn-online.com> <19970713195353.AD25187@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
J Wunsch wrote:
>
> As Sebastian Lederer wrote:
>
> > What would be the disadvantages if we used
> > /etc/local by default (on machines in an nfs-less environment) ?
>
> The ports paradigm is to not install/modify anything outside ${PREFIX}
> (except indirectly, e.g. by running ldconfig -m).
>
> The number of NFS-exported /usr/local's probably makes 5 % of the
> installed base (wild guess). Just since it applies to you doesn't
> mean it's a very general configuration.
So what do you mean: That FreeBSD is rarely used as an
NFS server for other FreeBSD machines, or that /usr/local
is rarely used for sharing common binaries, libraries, includes, etc.
among several FreeBSD machines via NFS ?
Or, to put it another way, which directory should be used for
NFS exporting, if not /usr/local? Maybe /opt? :-)
--
Sebastian Lederer
lederer@bonn-online.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?33C9DBA5.41C67EA6>