Joe Kelsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> David O'Brien writes:
> > On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 11:22:17AM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> > > Basically, /usr/local is for anything the local administration wants to
> > > officially support. The ports use of this (and by extension,
> > > pre-compiled ports (packages)) is thus completely justified.
> > Do you understandy why NetBSD's Packages install in /usr/pkg ?
> > What is your position behind that?
> I have no problem with /usr/pkg. I personally do not see the need for
> it. I have been arguing with Mike over his historic characterization of
> /usr/local as being a repository of locally written software, and I
> think I have proved my point that his characterization is incorrect.
I think I've proved that you completely misunderstood my
characterization of /usr/local. I also think that I proved Brandon's
characterization of using /usr/local for packages as "steeped in
decades of tradition" as false.
> My argument is solely that Mike is incorrect in characterizing
> /usr/local as a place for locally written software. I also find that
> his table is incorrect historically. The table he presented conveys his
> *wish* for administrative purposes and his attempts to justify it by
> some sort of historical argument do not hold water.
I don't think I ever claimed that it was solely for locally *written*
software. I claimed it was for locally *maintained* software. There's
a difference.
I don't know where you got the idea that the table had any kind of
historic representation. Nothing in it represents *history*. It
describes the world as it is now. If you feel that something in it is
incorrect, please say what it is instead of making vague statements
about the entire table.
<mike
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
