Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 09:37:53 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: "Brandon D. Valentine" <bandix@looksharp.net>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Confusing error messages from shell image activation Message-ID: <14899.41809.754369.259894@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <3A336781.94E1646@newsguy.com> References: <14898.33404.356173.963351@guru.mired.org> <14898.31393.228926.763711@guru.mired.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012091347030.88984-100000@turtle.looksharp.net> <200012100904.CAA27546@harmony.village.org> <3A336781.94E1646@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel C. Sobral <dcs@newsguy.com> types: > Mike Meyer wrote: > > Rant second: FreeBSD *violates* years of traditions with it's > > treatment of /usr/local. /usr/local is for *local* things, not add-on > > software packages! Coopting /usr/local for non-local software creates > > needless complexity and confusion, which of course leads to needless > > pain. > Not for everyone. FreeBSD adopted one of the ways /usr/local was being > used. You can keep ranting on this and pretending the way above is how > everyone used /usr/local as long as you want, but the fact is that you > won't get this changed. Interesting. What other OS distribution put things that went into /usr/local on their distribution media? I don't expect to get it changed until enough people are aware that it's a problem. Occasional rounds of consciousness-raising are required to make that happen. That may not happen until the old guard dies of old age; I asume we both want FreeBSD to be a viable OS that long. Warner Losh <imp@village.org> types: > In message <14898.33404.356173.963351@guru.mired.org> Mike Meyer writes: > : Corrections first: The only place where FreeBSD fails to follow FHS > : (in my quick perusal of it) is in putting packages in /usr/local > : instead of /opt. You can't blame that part of FHS on Linux - I have as > : yet to see a Linux distro or package do it that way. No, this bit > : comes from commercial vendors, where it's also steeped in years of > : tradition. > Not as many as you might think. /usr/local predates /opt by several > years. I'm aware that software was installing itself in /usr/local years before it was installing in /opt. On the other hand, vendor software was installing in /opt years before I ever saw it install in /usr/local. > : Rant second: FreeBSD *violates* years of traditions with it's > : treatment of /usr/local. /usr/local is for *local* things, not add-on > : software packages! Coopting /usr/local for non-local software creates > : needless complexity and confusion, which of course leads to needless > : pain. > Ummm, software packages have been make installing into /usr/local > since at least 1985 when I started building them. no coopting has > been done. If memory serves (and it may not at this remove), /usr/local/bin wasn't on my path until I started using VAXen, meaning there were few or no packages installing in /usr/local on v6 & v7 on the 11s. However, FreeBSD is still the only vendor distribution I know of that installs software in /usr/local. That's the problem - software that comes from the vendor doesn't belong in the local administrative regime. <mike 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?14899.41809.754369.259894>