[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: OpenPackages comments
On Tuesday, September 12, 2000, at 09:59 AM, Paul Richards wrote:
> With it's current usage I think creating a new location, other than
> /usr/local is a good idea, so that /usr/local goes back to being an area
> that is outside the scope of the OS.
> The issue of sharing packages across machines is a trickier one. If
> we're going to come up with a new directory layout then perhaps it
> should be
> to differentiate between files that are host specific and those that can
> be shared.
> Although, if the base system and packages become synonymouse then
> packages can just install into the same directory structure as the base
> system since everything including the base OS is just another package
> and can be managed like any other package.
I still see a need to distinguish between packages that are provided
by, say FreeBSD proper, and packages that are "other". The former would
go into the base tree, and the rest into /usr/local and /usr/export (or
whatever). /usr/local seems fine for non-OS packages.
Wilfredo Sánchez, firstname.lastname@example.org
Open Source Engineering Lead
Apple Computer, Inc., Core Operating System Group
1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 94086, 408.974-5174
To unsubscribe: send mail to <email@example.com>
with "unsubscribe bsdports" in the body of the message