From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Sep 8 17:40:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA19300 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 17:40:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA19290 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 17:40:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id RAA16486; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 17:40:30 -0700 (PDT) To: Brandon Gillespie cc: Brian Mitchell , Lutz Albers , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: what do you think ... should/could ports move to -> /usr/local/ports ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Sep 1997 11:19:41 MDT." Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 17:40:29 -0700 Message-ID: <16482.873765629@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Folks... I think it's time for a serious reality-check here. I don't think we're ever going to come to anything even *remotely* resembling a concensus to change this, so I might respectfully suggest that we simply kill the subject thread. /opt? Never. /local? You gotta be kidding me. /usr/opt? Not on your life. See? I already hate the counter-proposals discussed so far myself, and I'm hardly alone - there are many others here who would consider me a real wimp for using such tame responses as "never" and "not on your life" when they feel that "you've got to be f***ing kidding me! No way in *hell*, man!" would be closer to the proper response to these proposals so far. :-) /usr/local sucks too, sure, but at least we're used to it and people have long experience now in administering that location. Nothing but a painful and extended flame war would result from an actual change here, and we'd be complete idiots to voluntarily provoke such an outcome, so I really don't see the point in all this discussion about it. Jordan