Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 18:40:44 -0400 From: "Kevin P. Neal" <kpneal@pobox.com> To: Brandon Gillespie <brandon@roguetrader.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: what do you think ... should/could ports move to -> /usr/local/ports ? Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970908224044.00c94f58@mail.mindspring.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:19 AM 9/8/97 -0600, Brandon Gillespie wrote: >On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Brian Mitchell wrote: > >> On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Lutz Albers wrote: >> >> what about /usr/contrib like bsd/os? > >its no different than /usr/local, just a different name. Except that /usr/local and /usr/contrib have different connotations. /usr/local seems like it's for programs written locally, and /usr/contrib seems like it is for programs dl'd from the net. >I think the main issue here is that people feel /usr/local/ should be a >different fs (I agree), but many feel its unclean to mount from anything >other than root. What's wrong with having a /usr and a /usr/local filesystem? >Suggestion: mount it on /local, and symlink /usr/local to /local.. *bleah* I usually mount a drive at /local for kicking around in, various programs in states of build, source trees, etc. Totally different purpose than /usr/local. Where I work we have / and /local on different disks. Most if not all machines have nearly identical / disks. The /local, OTOH, is filled with all sorts of data. For example, my web servers at work are located in /local/etc/httpd.dir on the web server machines. -- XCOMM Kevin P. Neal, Junior, Comp. Sci. - House of Retrocomputing XCOMM mailto:kpneal@pobox.com - http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/ XCOMM kpneal@eos.ncsu.edu Spoken by Keir Finlow-Bates: XCOMM "Good grief, I've just noticed I've typed in a rant. Sorry chaps!"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1.5.4.32.19970908224044.00c94f58>