On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Fbsd1 wrote:
> Lowell Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> Fbsd1 writes:
>>
>>> But that is not true. The postfix port populates /usr/bin.
>>
>> By default, it does not. You have to enable the "Install into /usr and
>> /etc/postfix" configuration option for it to do so. I don't
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:21:57 -0400, Lowell Gilbert
wrote:
> Fbsd1 writes:
> > Your wrong. I installed the package of postfix and it installed it
> > self into /usr/bin with out any help from me.
>
> Believe it or not, I checked before responding, so I'm *not* wrong. I
> said that the port popu
Allow me an addition:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:13:10 -0700, Charlie Kester wrote:
> On Wed 07 Apr 2010 at 00:24:51 PDT Fbsd1 wrote:
> >Why are there RELEASE base files in /usr/bin. I thought /usr was to
> >only contain binaries installed from ports or packages.
>
> In many configurations, /bin and
Fbsd1 writes:
> Lowell Gilbert wrote:
>> Fbsd1 writes:
>>
>>> But that is not true. The postfix port populates /usr/bin.
>>
>> By default, it does not. You have to enable the "Install into /usr and
>> /etc/postfix" configuration option for it to do so. I don't recommend
>> that anyone do it wi
On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Fbsd1 wrote:
> I installed the package of postfix and it installed is self into /usr/bin
> with out any help from me.
Hmm, a terrible surprise, I agree.
Please ask for a refund of your purchase price from whomever sold you such a
package. :-)
Regards,
--
-Chuck
_
Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Fbsd1 wrote:
Your wrong. I installed the package of postfix and it installed it self into
/usr/bin with out any help from me.
Unless you or whoever built the package changed $PREFIX:
% pkg_info -Lx postfix
Information for postfix-2.7.0,1:
File
On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Fbsd1 wrote:
> Your wrong. I installed the package of postfix and it installed it self into
> /usr/bin with out any help from me.
Unless you or whoever built the package changed $PREFIX:
% pkg_info -Lx postfix
Information for postfix-2.7.0,1:
Files:
/usr/local/man/ma
Jonathan McKeown wrote:
On Wednesday 07 April 2010 11:13:13 Fbsd1 wrote:
Polytropon wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:24:51 +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
Why are there RELEASE base files in /usr/bin. I thought /usr was to only
contain binaries installed from ports or packages.
No. The /usr/local subtree (
Lowell Gilbert wrote:
Fbsd1 writes:
But that is not true. The postfix port populates /usr/bin.
By default, it does not. You have to enable the "Install into /usr and
/etc/postfix" configuration option for it to do so. I don't recommend
that anyone do it without a *really* good reason. Tur
On Wed 07 Apr 2010 at 10:13:10 PDT Charlie Kester wrote:
Think about scenarios where /usr fails to mount for some reason. Then
look at what's in /bin compared to what's in /usr/bin, and perhaps
you'll understand the logic of it.
I should add that comparing the contents of /usr/sbin and /sbin
On Wed 07 Apr 2010 at 00:24:51 PDT Fbsd1 wrote:
Why are there RELEASE base files in /usr/bin. I thought /usr was to
only contain binaries installed from ports or packages.
In many configurations, /bin and /usr/bin are not in the same slice. In
some cases, they're not even on the same drive.
Fbsd1 writes:
> But that is not true. The postfix port populates /usr/bin.
By default, it does not. You have to enable the "Install into /usr and
/etc/postfix" configuration option for it to do so. I don't recommend
that anyone do it without a *really* good reason. Turn that option back
off a
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:13:13 +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
> But that is not true.
It is, and the example you're giving is one of the
exceptions that secures the truth of the statement
given in "man hier". :-)
> The postfix port populates /usr/bin. And I am sure
> postfix is not the only port to do thi
On Wednesday 07 April 2010 11:13:13 Fbsd1 wrote:
> Polytropon wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:24:51 +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
> >> Why are there RELEASE base files in /usr/bin. I thought /usr was to only
> >> contain binaries installed from ports or packages.
> >
> > No. The /usr/local subtree (LOCAL)
Polytropon wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:24:51 +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
Why are there RELEASE base files in /usr/bin. I thought /usr was to only
contain binaries installed from ports or packages.
No. The /usr/local subtree (LOCAL) is for local additions (ports
and packages), while things outside t
To
FreeBSD Questions
cc
Subject
usage of /usr/bin
Why are there RELEASE base files in /usr/bin. I thought /usr was to only
contain binaries installed from ports or packages.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:24:51 +0800, Fbsd1 wrote:
> Why are there RELEASE base files in /usr/bin. I thought /usr was to only
> contain binaries installed from ports or packages.
No. The /usr/local subtree (LOCAL) is for local additions (ports
and packages), while things outside this structure usu
Why are there RELEASE base files in /usr/bin. I thought /usr was to only
contain binaries installed from ports or packages.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send a
18 matches
Mail list logo
