> > I ran mostly DEC boxes until the early 90s, which had all software
> > installed in /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin.
> Well, I ran DEC boxes for Dec (at WSE) back in the late 80s and early
> 90s, and don't remember anything being in /usr/local that I didn't
> drag of the net (or write myself) and install there, on either VAXen
> or MIPS boxes.

Hmm, trying to dig up memories of the software from that long ago.
Software that run a piece of chemistry hardware (a electronic
microscope?) sounds right, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

> > > By your own admission, /usr/local wasn't used on v7. So the discussion
> > > should turn to when BSD started seeing prebuilt vendor packages to
> > > install in /usr/local.
> > Late '80s on DEC boxes running Ultrix (which one could argue is one of
> > the earliest commercial 'vendor' BSD unices).  I don't consider Solaris
> > a BSD unix, so it using /opt isn't a valid point, which makes the whole
> > concept of '/opt' for BSD packages a moot point. :)
> I wish people would quite acting like moving packages out of
> /usr/local meant going to something like /opt. I don't think anyone in
> their right mind would suggest that.

'/opt', '/usr/pkg', '/whatever-you-want-to-call-it'.  You were the one
who claimed that Solaris was the first 'vendor' to provide packages, and
they used opt.

> > Probably the same time-frame for SunOS, although I didn't have
> > experience with it until the early 90's.  However, if necessary, I can
> > try and dig out installation docs for some software which ask to have
> > the stuff unpacked in /usr/local.
> I'd certainly be interested in that.

It'd be Purify.

> Of course, as you yourself said, the argument about tradition is a
> sideline. 


> The real issue is that ports/packages have one source, and
> things that may *not* have a mechanism to move them out of /usr/local
> (however badly broken) have another some of us want - quite
> legitimately - want to treat those two things differently, and
> packages using a directory name that has an established use makes that
> difficult.

Not true.  You can change the source to point to
'/usr/mike-likes-it-here', and it *should* work.  If it doesn't, then
it's borken. :)

Fixing broken things is a good thing.  Your argument about moving it
from /usr/local to show how broken is a good test procedure, but turning
it into policy is something completely different.

I think the 'tradition' of FreeBSD installing packages in /usr/local is
enough to leave things the way they are, especially since non-broken
packages allow you to install it somewhere else on *your* system.


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

Reply via email to