Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Nate Williams writes:
> : I know that as recent as 3=4 years ago, Purify installed itself by
> : default in /usr/local, on SunOS and Solaris.  Lucid did this as well,
> : although things start getting pretty fuzzy going back that far. :)
> purify and the binary distributions of xemacs installed themselves
> into /usr/local on Solaris in the 1992-1996 time frame.  As did *ALL*
> of the software binaries we downloaded from the net.  Framemaker
> installed in /usr/local as well in the SunOS 3.5/4.0 time frame.
> Interleaf installed itself in /usr/local on SunOS 4.0/4.1 time frame.

How much of that software did you get from the OS vendor?

> : > My claims about "history" and "tradition" are attempts to refute
> : > Brandon's assertion that packages going into /usr/local has "years of
> : > tradition behind it." Mostly, it's about what *packages* are, not what
> : > /usr/local was used for.
> : I disagree.
> I do too.

Exactly what do you disagree with? That I'm arguing about what
packages are? Or my assertion that packages installing in /usr/local
doesn't have years of tradition  behind it?

The former is clearly true. And I've never tried to claim that people
haven't been installing third party software in /usr/local for years
(though some interpreted my comments about "locally maintained
software" to exclude such). My claim is that the package system has
grown into something other than "something to make installing third
party software more convenient". It is pretty much a direct
translation of some vendors practice of providing precompiled freeware
into an OSS environment. The end user no longer has to worry about
porting to or configuring for the OS - someone appointed by the OS
vendor does that. The end user doesn't worry about updates to the
software - the vendor provides them with udpates to the OS. The end
user doesn't have to worry about what is and isn't part of the
software - tools for doing all that come with the OS (well, with
FreeBSD, anyway, if not with all the commercial OSs). Sure, with
FreeBSD the end user sometimes has to *compile* the package. On the
other hand, the end user sometimes has to compile the OS as well;
that's part of dealing with an OSS system.

Now, back to /usr/local and tradition - how many OS vendors provide
software that installs in /usr/local. So far, no one has named one
other than FreeBSD and OpenBSD, which copied FreeBSD. All the ones you
named aren't OS vendors, they are third parties distributing their own
software. Those are perfectly reasonable things to install in
/usr/local; the OS vendor has nothing to do with them. That's not true
for FreeBSD packages.


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

Reply via email to