Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 18:22:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Mitchell <brian@firehouse.net> To: Brandon Gillespie <brandon@roguetrader.com> Cc: Lutz Albers <lutz@muc.de>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: what do you think ... should/could ports move to -> /usr/local/ports ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.970908182142.26741B-100000@shell.firehouse.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970908111815.19593A-100000@roguetrader.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Brandon Gillespie wrote: > On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Brian Mitchell wrote: > > > On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Lutz Albers wrote: > > > > what about /usr/contrib like bsd/os? > > its no different than /usr/local, just a different name. It is. They have /usr/local as well, which is unpopulated. /usr/contrib is for contributed software on the cd but not maintained by bsdi. This is the same situation the ports collection is in. > > I think the main issue here is that people feel /usr/local/ should be a > different fs (I agree), but many feel its unclean to mount from anything > other than root. > > Suggestion: mount it on /local, and symlink /usr/local to /local.. > > -Brandon > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.95.970908182142.26741B-100000>