Nate Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> > > > 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.
No, I said they were the first OS vendor I was aware of that used
packages, as opposed to tarballs with ad hoc scripts.
> > 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. :)
True. I can also go through and fix everything in FreeBSD to use
/usr/packages-really-go-here, and release the resulting system as
EvenMoreFreeBSD. This is probably a lot easier that what you suggest,
as it involves fixing an identifiable set of software that claims to
be configurable for that (to bad the claim is only partly true). Doing
what you propose involves changing much larger set of software, much
of which doesn't even claim to be movable in that way.
> 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 *know* how broken it is - I tried to use the existing mechanism to
move it, based on the argument in the above paragraph. The thing is,
using *any* name that has ever been used by the community for
something (doesn't really matter what) for something new is bad,
because Unix doesn't have a mechanism that lets you separate things
once they've been used. Using a totally new name avoids that, and
linking it to the name you want is trivial.
Hmm - maybe they should go in /usr/.local?
> 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.
FreeBSD, of course, *does* have such a tradition. NetBSD and BSD/OS
don't. I can even see why, when jkh first built the port system, he
would make it use /usr/local. After all, he's just making it easier
for people to install software that normally installs there. The thing
is, the package system has grown into something more than that. It
really is vendor-supplied and vendor-supported third party software,
and part of the distribution. Those claiming that packages aren't part
of the FreeBSD distribution are claiming that something like 75% of
the "FreeBSD subscription" isn't in the FreeBSD distribution. In which
case, calling it a "FreeBSD subscription" would seem to be a misnomer
as bad as calling a planet thats 75% water "dirt".
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message