Crist J. Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 01:51:25PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 12:26:38PM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> > > To the extent that NetBSD *forces* the local administrator to use
> > > /usr/pkg, I find it contains the same deficiency.
> > Nope.  One can ``ln -s /usr/local /usr/pkg'' and get the behavior those
> > that like everything in one place prefers while still segregating stuff
> > for those that prefer it.
> That makes no sense. The big argument has been that packages should
> not go into /usr/local because /usr/local is for something else. If
> you symlink do the symlink trick, you only have one real location for
> files. If you were to do that, /usr/local or /usr/pkg would be
> identical. Might as well make /usr/local the "real" location and
> symlink /usr/pkg. What's the difference?

The difference is the cases aren't symmetric.

If you want the two merged, then it doesn't matter what the system
calls it, you can symlink your preferred name to theirs (or vice
versa) and you're done.

If you want the two split, the system name becomes something you
*can't* use for your local packages, period.

Which is why FreeBSD choosing a name that has a historical usage is
bad. If someone feels that packages aren't appropriate for that
historical usage and wants to use other software that wants that
usage, they're screwed. PREFIX lets people feel smug about being able
to move it, but as far as I was able to determine when I asked, no one
with the commit bit actually runs systems using PREFIX that
way. Providing an untested "solution" isn't a good thing.


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

Reply via email to