Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 17:51:07 -0600 (CST) From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) To: lyndon@orthanc.com (Lyndon Nerenberg) Cc: peter@taronga.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: More nits Message-ID: <199511262351.RAA27087@bonkers.taronga.com> In-Reply-To: <199511262337.PAA13606@multivac.orthanc.com> from "Lyndon Nerenberg" at Nov 26, 95 03:37:10 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Peter> a "gnu bonus pack" with all the "standard" gnu tools would > Peter> be good. > How do you handle namespace collisions? I would agree with this > iff the utilities were installed somewhere outside of the standard > PATH (i.e. in /usr/gnu/bin). If they're installed from packages they'd be in /usr/local/bin. I personally like having a /usr/gnu/bin myself. > Peter> a "tcl/tk bonus pack" is of course required, tcl, tk, > Peter> tcldp, expect, ... > TCL and TK are useful enough that they should be part of the base > distribution (as is perl). Been there, done that, they decided that they didn't want it. Got a bmaked tcl rotting on freefall. > My biggest complaint with the ports stuff right now is the way it > scribbles all over /usr/local. Even worse, it isn't consistent (e.g. > binaries installed in /usr/bin and support stuff under /usr/local/lib). > /usr/local should be HANDS OFF to the vendor-supplied software, something > I consider "ports" to be. Ah, but the "vendor" doesn't. > The ports software should be configured to install into either the > standard directory tree, or into a seperate /usr/ports hierarchy. I'd buy that. I like organizing things that way myself. But it's certainly not what I'd call a super-high priority.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511262351.RAA27087>