On Mar 27, 2007, at 12:12 AM, Don O'Neil wrote:

If they are 'ports' specificly built for FreeBSD, shouldn't the port
maintainer make them install like the originals were? Makes sense to me....


Or maybe the original install/release needs to be changed to install the
same as the port.

It's a pain having to debug where everything went, change config files, update startup scripts, make symlinks, etc... When if it were Linux a simple
RPM install would update it and I'd be done with it.

Just my observations.

The ports tree installs things to the /usr/local/ prefix, to help you keep your ports and base system separate. This is a normal behavior, and has been normal for a lot longer than you have been using FreeBSD. I apologize, but I doubt the developers are going to change the standard behavior just because you got confused the first time you tried to replace a base system component.

Look here in section 4.5.2.1:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports- using.html

-----
Eric F Crist
Secure Computing Networks


_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to