Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:53:45 -0800 From: mdf@FreeBSD.org To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The strangeness called `sbin' Message-ID: <CAMBSHm-Z%2BifRb_a8kaOOFX9rdiQTCnJUHuT=h34gWHyvxnT3iA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmo=8%2BnbuSsvnFpXi9BdMwqdZzXJEjW0Fjb8CG4WmAu_9rQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201111140101.pAE11XEa067064@mail.karels.net> <201111140802.13355.jhb@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1111141745001.94325@fledge.watson.org> <20111114193434.GC2164@hoeg.nl> <CAJ-Vmo=8%2BnbuSsvnFpXi9BdMwqdZzXJEjW0Fjb8CG4WmAu_9rQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > I honestly think we have _much bigger_ things to try and fix before we > worry about the layout of binaries in the directory hierarchy. > > Once we've sorted out things like virtualisation hooks for the > installer and management, better package management and upgrade paths, > module/kernel build sync, cross-compiled ports, non-root installation > methods, etc, etc.. I think then we could look at this kind of thing. Except that Ed isn't volunteering to work on those; they don't scratch his itch. My personal and vendor perspective is that mostly I don't care where the utilities are. I'm not a sysadmin so I can't comment on that aspect of it. However, if we are voting, I'm cautiously in favor of Ed's proposal, simply because I like change that makes things simpler, regardless of the costs involved in a switch. Cheers, matthew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAMBSHm-Z%2BifRb_a8kaOOFX9rdiQTCnJUHuT=h34gWHyvxnT3iA>