Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 23:53:55 -0700 From: asami@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Satoshi Asami | =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?=) To: alexis@unicorn.ww.net Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: /usr/local filetree and ports question Message-ID: <199505280653.XAA07439@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <199505272021.AAA23918@unicorn.ww.net> (alexis@unicorn.ww.net)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I think questions like this are more well-suited to the "ports" list, Alexis.... * My knowledges may be out of date, but every FreeBSD port I saw * before used /usr/local/lib directory for its libraries. The question is : * The thing described above would, as I suppose, enhace the structure * of the whole FreeBSD. I agree with you, it's just that we are try to minimize the changes necessary to the original source to make upgrades and stuff easier. This means following the original's directory structures (as long as they are in /usr/local or /usr/X11R6), and this usually means /usr/local/lib for the libraries, architecture independent or not. It's really not any philosophical decision on our part. But with nearly 300 ports out there, holding the upgrade headaches to a minimum has a very high priority to us. ;) Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199505280653.XAA07439>