Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 08:09:17 +0200 From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: Evan Champion <evanc@synapse.net>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: what do you think ... should/could ports move to -> /usr/local/ports ? Message-ID: <19970908080917.09111@klemm.gtn.com> In-Reply-To: <19970908093740.17864@lemis.com>; from Greg Lehey on Mon, Sep 08, 1997 at 09:37:40AM %2B0930 References: <19970907160423.39071@klemm.gtn.com> <3412C092.57D67DA9@synapse.net> <19970908093740.17864@lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Sep 08, 1997 at 09:37:40AM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
> /usr/local or its replacement should possibly be a separate file
> system. I find the idea of mounting file systems on non-root file
> systems aesthetically displeasing.
Can't understand this. You only have to deal with a suitable
order in /etc/fstab ... But whats the problem ...
> How about (shudder) following the
> System V example and mounting them on /opt?
The pure System V R4 example follows the idea:
/opt/<package>/{bin,lib,man,...}
not
/opt/{bin,lib,man}
This was discussed already one year ago and nobody wanted
/opt/<port_name>/bin
/lib
/include
/info
/man
/man/man1
...
figure out ... 1048 or so entries in the root of /opt.
Even
/opt/<category_name>/<port_name>/bin
/lib
/include
/info
/man
/man/man1
...
Would have the disadvantage to have many many bin subdirs and
youd have to symlink everything into a global
/opt/bin
/opt/include
/opt/lib
/opt/man
/opt/info
I'd dislike to simply renaming /usr/local to /opt, since this
wouldn't be that /opt as we know it. And we would look different
to SYSV _and_ to the other BSD variants. Then better keep
/usr/local in the /usr filesystem.
--
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?19970908080917.09111>