On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:39:50AM +0100, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:07:50AM +0100, Alexander Hall wrote: > > > The suggestion about installing packages into /<whatever> is fine if > > stated as a suggestion and/or question. I do not agree, but still I > > think the question is valid. However, adding "It doesn't need any > > funding to fix this." makes it seem like a mistake that is trivial to > > fix, and I can understand if that pisses Marc off. > > ...however it was just an answer to Michael Dexters suggestion... (read the > thread). > > > BTW, think about all ports with hardcoded paths to > > /usr/local/<dependency>. One might argue that those ports are broken, > > but I'd guess there are quite a lot of them. > > "Hardcoded"? So, changing LOCALBASE could be even dangerous, I'm afraid. > Nothing can I do then with this.
While I guess it would be nice if every package looked for LOCALBASE, I think that every OS/distro has its own version of hier which you violate at your peril. You don't happen to agree that OpenBSD uses /usr/local for things under the controll of package management. However, bucking that is likely more hard work than its worth. I put my little scripts that I want system wide in /opt/[domain]/usr/... which leaves /usr/local free for OBSD stuff. I don't package them up because then I'd have to package them up for my debian boxes: too much effort. Doug.
