Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 10:46:02 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> To: Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD CURRENT <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ? Message-ID: <662dbcebb38135deb1599cd9d8fee3e133330409.camel@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAOtMX2g3G0nFCXGoWo14d1iwOisBUBAom6=v_gTHfJOoT3mJdw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAOtMX2g3G0nFCXGoWo14d1iwOisBUBAom6=v_gTHfJOoT3mJdw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2021-07-16 at 09:01 -0600, Alan Somers wrote: > FreeBSD has always placed /usr/local/X after /usr/X in the default PATH. > AFAICT that convention began with SVN revision 37 "Initial import of 386BSD > 0.1 othersrc/etc". Why is that? It would make sense to me that > /usr/local/X should come first. That way programs installed from ports can > override FreeBSD's defaults. Is there a good reason for this convention, > or is it just inertia? > -Alan I have a hierarchy on my machines rooted at /local and /local/bin is before /bin and /usr/bin in my PATH, so I can override system tools when I explicitly want to without suffering any problems of an unexpected override from installing a port or package. If you're using ports as a development environment to work on a new gstat replacement, you could do something similar and put PREFIX=/local in your port makefile while you're developing on it. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?662dbcebb38135deb1599cd9d8fee3e133330409.camel>