On 16-7-2021 18:46, Ian Lepore wrote:
On Fri, 2021-07-16 at 09:01 -0600, Alan Somers wrote:
FreeBSD has always placed /usr/local/X after /usr/X in the default PATH.
AFAICT that convention began with SVN revision 37 "Initial import of 386BSD
0.1 othersrc/etc". Why is that? It would make sense
On 16/07/2021 16:50, Cameron Katri via freebsd-current wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 09:01:49AM -0600, Alan Somers wrote:
FreeBSD has always placed /usr/local/X after /usr/X in the default PATH.
AFAICT that convention began with SVN revision 37 "Initial import of 386BSD
0.1 othersrc/etc". Why
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:46 AM Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-07-16 at 09:01 -0600, Alan Somers wrote:
> > FreeBSD has always placed /usr/local/X after /usr/X in the default PATH.
> > AFAICT that convention began with SVN revision 37 "Initial import of
> 386BSD
> > 0.1 othersrc/etc". Why is
On Fri, 2021-07-16 at 09:01 -0600, Alan Somers wrote:
> FreeBSD has always placed /usr/local/X after /usr/X in the default PATH.
> AFAICT that convention began with SVN revision 37 "Initial import of 386BSD
> 0.1 othersrc/etc". Why is that? It would make sense to me that
> /usr/local/X should
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 09:01:49 -0600
> Alan Somers wrote:
>
> > FreeBSD has always placed /usr/local/X after /usr/X in the default
> > PATH. AFAICT that convention began with SVN revision 37 "Initial
> > import of 386BSD 0.1 othersrc/etc". Why is that? It would make
> > sense to me that
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:11:41AM -0600, Alan Somers wrote:
> Ugh, that's a good example. I was thinking more about interactive
> programs, like say /usr/bin/vi vs editors/vim. Hypothetically how would
> one solve the conflict if /usr/local/bin came before /usr/bin ? Install
> binutils's
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 9:54 AM Cameron Katri via freebsd-current <
freebsd-current@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 09:01:49AM -0600, Alan Somers wrote:
> > FreeBSD has always placed /usr/local/X after /usr/X in the default PATH.
> > AFAICT that convention began with SVN revision 37
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 09:01:49AM -0600, Alan Somers wrote:
> FreeBSD has always placed /usr/local/X after /usr/X in the default PATH.
> AFAICT that convention began with SVN revision 37 "Initial import of 386BSD
> 0.1 othersrc/etc". Why is that? It would make sense to me that
> /usr/local/X
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 09:01:49 -0600
Alan Somers wrote:
> FreeBSD has always placed /usr/local/X after /usr/X in the default
> PATH. AFAICT that convention began with SVN revision 37 "Initial
> import of 386BSD 0.1 othersrc/etc". Why is that? It would make
> sense to me that /usr/local/X
FreeBSD has always placed /usr/local/X after /usr/X in the default PATH.
AFAICT that convention began with SVN revision 37 "Initial import of 386BSD
0.1 othersrc/etc". Why is that? It would make sense to me that
/usr/local/X should come first. That way programs installed from ports can
override
10 matches
Mail list logo