From owner-freebsd-current Fri Feb 16 07:12:35 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id HAA09013 for current-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 07:12:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA09008 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 07:12:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA06761; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 07:11:53 -0800 To: Dave Glowacki 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 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 16 Feb 1996 08:16:55 CST." <199602161416.IAA24003@tick.SSEC.WISC.EDU> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 07:11:53 -0800 Message-ID: <6759.824483513@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > /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