Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 23:09:36 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Lyndon Nerenberg VE7TCP <lyndon@orthanc.com> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Hysterical Raisons Message-ID: <431.824454576@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 15 Feb 1996 19:32:32 PST." <199602160332.TAA00541@multivac.orthanc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> If we're going to mandate a hierarchy convention for /usr/local > it's going to be pretty tough to exempt /usr/ports from that, isn't > it? Uh, I think it's the other way around. If you took a straw poll of FreeBSD systems everywhere, I think you'd find that at least 90% of them populated their /usr/local directories almost *exclusively* from the ports collection. With 387 ports currently in the ports collection, 68% of which install into /usr/local (another 31% go into /usr/X11R6 which, interestingly enough, leaves 1% unaccounted for :), the impact on that directory by the ports collection should not be underestimated. To put it another way, I think that whatever policy is adopted by *the ports collection* will become the defacto policy for /usr/local (and perhaps even /usr/X11R6 someday, after the number of ports tops 1000 :-). So basically, if Satoshi buys off on a hier(7) style structure for /usr/local and starts beating ports (or their authors :) into conformance, it'll happen. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?431.824454576>