From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Jan 4 06:31:10 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA20026 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 06:31:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns.insolwwb.net (ns.insolwwb.net [206.31.149.200]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA20018 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 06:31:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mgrommet@insolwwb.net) Received: from mikeg (work2.insolwwb.net [208.150.248.12]) by ns.insolwwb.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA08894 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 08:27:27 -0600 (CST) From: mike grommet Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: /usr/local/bin [was: Re: executable scripts] Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 08:31:26 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-reply-to: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >From personal experience, you will find that because FreeBSD does dump local packages into /usr/local, that your upgrades with freebsd will go much much easier than with BSDI... The BSDI upgrade process stinks because if you are doing your job, you are updating packages like apache and such as needed and then when it comes time to upgrade the OS, the upgraded software ends up putting up versions of software that is ancient compared to what you have previously installed. FreeBSD upgrades are fairly nice. the only time I've had this problem with FreeBSD is with sendmail... I've installed 8.9.1, 2.2.8 re-installed 8.8.whatever... now the nice thing was that I put the source tree for sendmail under /usr/local so all I had to do was go into the sendmail tree and do another reinstall... everything else was perfect. I like BSDI just fine other than the upgrade procedures, and its a fine OS and performs well, but they could definately make some massive improvements in their upgrade methodology -----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Studded Sent: Sunday, January 03, 1999 8:26 PM To: Michael Maxwell Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /usr/local/bin [was: Re: executable scripts] On Sun, 3 Jan 1999, Michael Maxwell wrote: > On Sun, Jan 03, 1999 at 08:58:43PM +1000, Greg Black wrote: > > I'm just playing with an initial install of FreeBSD for the > > first time and had noticed the way ports polluted /usr/local > > which I have always considered to be *mine*. I've noted that > > BSDI use /usr/contrib for the sort of stuff that FreeBSD puts in > > /usr/local, and that seems more sensible to me if there is > ---end quoted text--- > > I just reverse the process: I let the ports and packages fall where they > may, and I put locally compiled or developed programs in /usr/contrib. I like /usr/mine personally, but it's a matter of taste. :) The whole /usr/local idea is widespread, it's not just FreeBSD. Better to establish a totally unique location for your stuff that no one else is likely to use than it is to try and fight the battle every time it comes up. Doug -- *** Chief Operations Officer, DALnet IRC network *** Like desperadoes waiting for a train . . . To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message