> > Fixing broken things is a good thing. Your argument about 'moving it
> > from /usr/local to show how broken' is a good test procedure, but turning
> > it into policy is something completely different.
> >
> > I think the 'tradition' of FreeBSD installing packages in /usr/local is
> > enough to leave things the way they are, especially since non-broken
> > packages allow you to install it somewhere else on *your* system.
>
> You have to admit that the "prebuilt packages" argument is
> a pretty good one. I don't used many myself (only cvsup, I
> think), but if it's true that the distribution CDs ship these
> pre-built programs, rather than the distfiles, then they should
> be built in such a way as to minimise the amount of "built-in
> policy".
I don't think anyone is agreeing.
> Building for /usr/pkg (which can be sym-linked to
> /usr/local) does seem to solve that problem, without having to
> invent a mechanism for tweaking compiled-in paths after the
> fact.
I don't see how building it for /usr/local or /usr/pkg by default
changes things. If things are built for a default location, they'll be
broken no matter where they go.
> The default setup for locally built ports can stay exactly as it
> is.
I don't agree that we need to differentiate between 'pre-built' ports
and 'locally built' ports. As a matter of fact, I think differentiating
only confuses things.
If the 'port' is broken w/regard to not using it's 'base', then it's
broken, no matter where it's installed to. I think time would be better
spent fixing this brokeness rather than arguing where the default should
be. :)
Nate
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
