Re: PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ?

2021-08-15 Thread Willem Jan Withagen via freebsd-current
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

Re: PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ?

2021-07-16 Thread David Chisnall
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

Re: PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ?

2021-07-16 Thread Alan Somers
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

Re: PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ?

2021-07-16 Thread Ian Lepore
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

Re: PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ?

2021-07-16 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
> > > 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

Re: PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ?

2021-07-16 Thread Cameron Katri via freebsd-current
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

Re: PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ?

2021-07-16 Thread Alan Somers
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

Re: PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ?

2021-07-16 Thread Cameron Katri via freebsd-current
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

Re: PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ?

2021-07-16 Thread Michael Gmelin
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

PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ?

2021-07-16 Thread Alan Somers
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