Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 16 Feb 1996 07:11:53 -0800
From:      "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
To:        Dave Glowacki <dglo@SSEC.WISC.EDU>
Cc:        asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami), coredump@nervosa.com, pst@shockwave.com, current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: /usr/local/libexec vs /usr/local/sbin 
Message-ID:  <6759.824483513@time.cdrom.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 16 Feb 1996 08:16:55 CST." <199602161416.IAA24003@tick.SSEC.WISC.EDU> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> /usr/local has historically been for software that's local to one
> machine.

Well, I think there are a couple of ways to answer that.

1.  "Yes, it's still local to the machine.  We still let the user decide for
     themselves just what packages and ports to install on a given machine,
     after all, and if those same ports and packages happen to have some
     convention of their own for organizing /usr/local, well, so what?  It's
     better than the alternative jumble, yes?"

2.  People stopped using /usr/local as a one-machine resource long ago,
    just as soon as the first large workstation computing clusters came
    into being with users who still wanted to be able to type things like
    "/usr/local/bin/elm" and have it just work.  The ports and packages
    collection is merely the extension of a philosophy that's been popular
    for more than a decade.

So you see, no matter what side of the argument you take, *local* or
"local", I win.. :-)

					Jordan



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6759.824483513>