On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 10:13:42AM -0600, Mike Meyer wrote:

> Whether or not it's part of FreeBSD is immaterial. It's part of the
> distribution that comes from FreeBSD, and is treated differentlyh from
> locally installed software (whether written locally or by a third
> party) in every case *except* where it installs - and that's only
> because it's installed in the wrong place.
> In other words, "It's not part of FreeBSD" is a rationalization.

You are really reaching here.  Contributed software that the FreeBSD
Project has chosen to integrate, i.e., Perl, Sendmail, just to name a
few, are integrated tightly and installed in /usr/bin, etc, not in

Ports, on the other hand are installed in /usr/local or /usr/X11R6.
You seem to mis-understand that a FreeBSD port is basically a set of
patches and a source fetching mechanism that is included with FreeBSD
as a convenience for building and installing third party software.
The actual software that gets built and installed is _not_ part of
FreeBSD.  This is not a rationalization.

I for one would be really upset if when I installed a Port, it's
binaries started getting dropped into /bin, /usr/bin, etc.  I suspect
many others would too.

I'm really not exactly sure what you are complaining about.  For
example, the last time I built Emacs for Solaris (several years ago
admittedly), by default it installed itself into /usr/local.  If you
install Emacs onto FreeBSD, it goes into /usr/local.  The behaviour is
the same.  Are you proposing that since FreeBSD provides a set of
patches so that Emacs builds cleanly, that it should therefore install
it somewhere other than /usr/local?

Brian Dean

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to