Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 16:04:23 +0200 From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: what do you think ... should/could ports move to -> /usr/local/ports ? Message-ID: <19970907160423.39071@klemm.gtn.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi ! I'm just repartitioning my system. When thinking about a new disk layout and partitioning I came to the conclusion, that putting the ports collection to /usr/local/ports would be cleaner, than using /usr/ports. I think /usr should only contain stuff, that actually belong to the basic system. Sometimes there are situations, where I want to recursively remove the whole ports tree and this lasts so long, that I use the async mount option. But I don't feel well, since I then use async on the complete /usr file system... It might hurt the basic OS if things go wrong (power fail ...). IMHO best would be to make /usr so large, that it fits the normal /usr filesystem contents and to put /usr/local into a separate filesystem together with the ports, which is the ,basis' of /usr/local. Would it be a big thing to move it to /usr/local ? Or is this an religious issue ? Would be fine, if the standard installation would install the ports into this /usr/local/ports target ... Just some thoughts, not a big deal ... Andreas /// -- Andreas Klemm | klemm.gtn.com - powered by Symmetric MultiProcessor FreeBSD http://www.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/SMP.html http://www.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/benches.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970907160423.39071>