Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 20:01:50 +0100 (CET) From: Blaz Zupan <blaz@amis.net> To: Brian Dean <bsd@bsdhome.com> Cc: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /usr/local abuse Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012101954570.93090-100000@titanic.medinet.si> In-Reply-To: <20001210134441.B39643@vger.bsdhome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I think I finally understand what you are complaining about, and that > is that PREFIX is not honoured by all ports. If that is your > argument, then yes, obviously that should be fixed if possible. But > to say that installing ports into /usr/local is somehow wrong, I have > to disagree. This is a site dependent decision, which can be I believe the argument is that *packages* don't belong to /usr/local. And I agree. Ports are easy, because you can use PREFIX and put them wherever you want (if the port is well behaved). But packages are precompiled and there is this thing called package database that keeps track of what file belongs where. The argument is simple: currently, packages install into /usr/local. Local software which is not a package or port also installs into /usr/local. It's a mess because you don't know if a file belongs to a package (and the package system keeps track of it in /var/db/pkg) or if it was locally installed. So, can you remove this file? It's roughly comparable to the situation that would arise if we would install packages into /usr - you wouldn't know if a file belongs to a package or to the base system and you wouldn't know if you can safely remove it. Blaz Zupan, Medinet d.o.o, Linhartova 21, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia E-mail: blaz@amis.net, Tel: +386-2-320-6320, Fax: +386-2-320-6325 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0012101954570.93090-100000>