Joe Kelsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> David O'Brien writes:
> > On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 11:22:17AM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> > > Basically, /usr/local is for anything the local administration wants to
> > > officially support. The ports use of this (and by extension,
> > > pre-compiled ports (packages)) is thus completely justified.
> > Do you understandy why NetBSD's Packages install in /usr/pkg ?
> > What is your position behind that?
> I have no problem with /usr/pkg. I personally do not see the need for
> it. I have been arguing with Mike over his historic characterization of
> /usr/local as being a repository of locally written software, and I
> think I have proved my point that his characterization is incorrect.
I think I've proved that you completely misunderstood my
characterization of /usr/local. I also think that I proved Brandon's
characterization of using /usr/local for packages as "steeped in
decades of tradition" as false.
> My argument is solely that Mike is incorrect in characterizing
> /usr/local as a place for locally written software. I also find that
> his table is incorrect historically. The table he presented conveys his
> *wish* for administrative purposes and his attempts to justify it by
> some sort of historical argument do not hold water.
I don't think I ever claimed that it was solely for locally *written*
software. I claimed it was for locally *maintained* software. There's
I don't know where you got the idea that the table had any kind of
historic representation. Nothing in it represents *history*. It
describes the world as it is now. If you feel that something in it is
incorrect, please say what it is instead of making vague statements
about the entire table.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message