Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:04:18 -0800 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: patfbsd@davenulle.org Cc: ed@80386.nl, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The strangeness called `sbin' Message-ID: <4ec21d02.DIq3JznJ4WBtwCd7%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <20111114172609.1c2aeb0a@davenulle.org> References: <20111110123919.GF2164@hoeg.nl> <4EBC4B6E.4060607@FreeBSD.org> <20111111112821.GP2164@hoeg.nl> <4EBDC06F.6020907@FreeBSD.org> <20111112103918.GV2164@hoeg.nl> <4EBF0003.3060401@FreeBSD.org> <20111113091940.GX2164@hoeg.nl> <4EC04B65.4030801@FreeBSD.org> <20111114092922.GA2164@hoeg.nl> <20111114172609.1c2aeb0a@davenulle.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Patrick Lamaiziere <patfbsd@davenulle.org> wrote: > I would like to keep /usr/local for ports only. > When things are going wrong with ports it is sometimes > easier to rm -rf /usr/local and rebuild all from scratch. When using this approach -- which I agree makes sense -- where should one put truly local (non-ports) executables (/usr/local/bin and /usr/local/sbin being reserved for ports executables)?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4ec21d02.DIq3JznJ4WBtwCd7%perryh>