Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 16:56:38 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Confusing error messages from shell image activation Message-ID: <14900.2598.958785.326648@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <14899.62189.243395.903919@nomad.yogotech.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> <14899.41809.754369.259894@guru.mired.org> <200012101557.KAA29588@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <14899.43958.622675.847234@guru.mired.org> <20001210120840.C38697@vger.bsdhome.com> <14899.47196.795281.662619@zircon.seattle.wa.us> <14899.49294.958909.82912@guru.mired.org> <14899.62738.768609.598990@nomad.yogotech.com> <14899.62189.243395.903919@nomad.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> types: > > 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. > Most vendor software I know pre-dates /opt, and installed itself in > /usr/local. I'm with Warner on this one, installing in /usr/local > predates /opt by many years. Before /opt, vendors always used > /usr/local, or worse they installed in /bin and /usr/bin. Oh, I agree that installing things in /usr/local predates /opt by years. I'm curious as to what vendor provided software installed itself in /usr/local, though, as I've never seen any. > > 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. > On V7 (the earliest software I have), vendor software installed itself > in /usr/[bin|lib], which is IMO worse than /usr/local. That sounds like you're agreeing with me, at least about v7. Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> types: > > Then again, your quoting of "packages" points up something else - I > > never saw prepackaged binaries for v6 or v7. > I did on SysIII. As a matter of fact, the entire distribution was > bundled into separate packets (all of them installed in /usr). :( SysIII was not something I ever worked with. I went from v7 to BSD until, and stayed pretty much BSD until I started working with Solaris in the early/mid 90s. > In any case, I think you're wasting your time trying to convince folks > here. It appears to me that this is an argument going nowhere, and the > claims you're making of history and tradition are way off the mark, thus > making the arguments have much less weight. I few this as consciousness-raising. That's an ongoing process. My claims about "history" and "tradition" are attempts to refute Brandon's assertion that packages going into /usr/local has "years of tradition behind it." Mostly, it's about what *packages* are, not what /usr/local was used for. By your own admission, /usr/local wasn't used on v7. So the discussion should turn to when BSD started seeing prebuilt vendor packages to install in /usr/local. <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?14900.2598.958785.326648>