On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:58:49AM -0600, Dan Potter wrote: > I think this is just Another One Of Those Differences between Debian > and BSD (or perhaps Linux distros in general and BSD). I think the BSD > equivalent for the Debian /usr/local would probably be /opt, as someone > mentioned offhand earlier.
Perhaps. I guess we consider /opt to be for packages from commercial vendors -- probably not for something downloaded off the net, compiled from source yourself. But /opt and /usr/local are both completely under the admin's control, and not the vendor's. > I still personally think that Debian's way makes for a more integrated > system with less package hassle, but that's just me (and a number of other > people, I gather). Of course that's why I'd like to see a Debian based on > a FreeBSD kernel instead of a FreeBSD distro with dpkg slapped on top. I personally think Debian's arrangement is the only sensible one. The distinction /usr versus /usr/local on BSD is IMHO rather artificial; they're all vendor supplied, just that one is the base system and the other is not. cheers Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB. CCs of replies on mailing lists are welcome.
