Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:14:04 -0800 (PST) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@phone.net> To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ldconfig finding libraries, but ld is not. Message-ID: <14379.19900.963634.387520@guru.phone.net> In-Reply-To: <19991111144938.B69565@pinky.plambert.net> References: <14378.28246.28493.440833@guru.phone.net> <199911112213.RAA34417@server.baldwin.cx> <14379.17630.340446.163663@guru.phone.net> <19991111144938.B69565@pinky.plambert.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul M . Lambert writes: ;->> The bottom line is that taking the name people have standardized on ;->> for installing *local* packages and installing system-provided ;->> packages there is a bad thing(TM). None of the solutions I used ;->> suffered from that flaw. ;->Ports are not provided by the OS. Neither are packages. You're arguing semantics. Ports (and packages) come on the CD-ROM that comes with my subscription to FreeBSD. I see complaints about ports failing to build or function properly regularly on a mail list @freebsd.org, and nobody complains that it's inappropriate. I won't argue that they are part of the OS - if you won't argue that they aren't part of the FreeBSD distribution (in fact, a major part as far as I'm concerned.) ;->If there's a problem with a port, it's not the responsibility of ;->the people with commit access to the OS source. It's a _port_. It's the responsibility of the people who have commit access to the *ports* tree. That's why problem reports about ports go to freebsd-ports! ;->It belongs in /usr/local. I don't agree. Things being maintainted and supported locally belong in /usr/local. Ports and packages come on the distribution, and you go back to the same channels for support as you do for core parts of that distribution. ;->Items distributed with the OS and maintained by the maintainers of ;->the OS belong in /usr; items specific to each machine (which may ;->not be on the next FreeBSD machine you encounter) belong in ;->/usr/local. Code I've written myself, I put in /usr/local. I'm sorry, but if you believe that optional parts of the distribution belong in /usr/local, the sendmail clearly belongs there: bash-2.03$ grep -i sendmail /etc/make.conf # To avoid building sendmail NO_SENDMAIL= true bash-2.03$ ;->I'm aware that you disagree, and I don't begrudge you that right. ;->But I would like you to be made aware that there are many of us ;->out here who feel that the FreeBSD way meets our needs better than ;->stuffing absolutely everything that anyone can figure out how to ;->put into an RPM into one directory tree. I understand that. My problem isn't that everything isn't shoved into /usr. My problem is that the standard name space for locally-supported packages has been coopted by part of the FreeBSD distribution. I'd be equally happy if it were /opt, /packages, /usr/packages, or something similar (/lets/make/mike/type/a/lot would make me unhappy, mind you :-). I'm not pushing for that to change - I realize how much work it would be - but I'm going to exercise the option to complain about it if an appropriate moment comes up and I've been bitten by it recently. <mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14379.19900.963634.387520>