Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 20:58:43 +1000 From: Greg Black <gjb@acm.org> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@phone.net> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: /usr/local/bin [was: Re: executable scripts] Message-ID: <19990103105843.6982.qmail@alice.gba.oz.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9901021754370.11212-100000@guru.phone.net> of Sat, 02 Jan 1999 18:06:14 PST References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9901021754370.11212-100000@guru.phone.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> As an aside from someone not new to Unix, I don't put commands in > /usr/local on FreeBSD by hand - because /usr/ports builds into > it. Instead, I put them in an install directory on a custom fs, and > symlink the commands back to /usr/local/bin. I'm just playing with an initial install of FreeBSD for the first time and had noticed the way ports polluted /usr/local which I have always considered to be *mine*. I've noted that BSDI use /usr/contrib for the sort of stuff that FreeBSD puts in /usr/local, and that seems more sensible to me if there is really a reason not to put these things in /usr/bin. Anyway, my question is: is there some way to have the ports put into some other prefix than /usr/local so that it can be used as expected? Or do we have to reinvent /usr/local with some less intuitive name? -- Greg Black <gjb@acm.org> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990103105843.6982.qmail>