On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:10:12PM +0100, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote: > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:53:52PM +0200, Michael Dexter wrote: > > > >Are they willing to take a suggestions from the users side? > > > > Ask them. > > During last 3 weeks I tried to contact 3 (yes, three) devs. None of them > responded even with "get lost". > > > However, you will get far further with suggestions backed by a solid > > understanding of each issue, plus funding. The benefits of a broad yet > > shallow feature set can be found in most alternative operating systems and > > you are welcome to use them. > > Who said, it must be about new features? There is an issue, about which I > wrote already - OK, once more: > > I noticed, that default path, where software from binary pkg and "ports" > gets unpacked, is /usr/local hierarchy - unfortunately, it's also the > "traditional" default of every individual source *.tar.gz package - such > way the software ported to OpenBSD gets mixed with any other package, > which I had installed. Wouldn't be reasonable to create new hierarchy, > especially for the "native" OpenBSD software (from binary packages and > ports) - I mean: something like /usr/pkg in NetBSD? > > It doesn't need any funding to fix this.
In essence, this is suggesting to move third party software installed by the project's third party software management tools out of /usr/local, so that it is out of the way for users who want to install software on their system without using the project's third party software management tools. I can imagine one response: Port whatever it is, or else change where it will be installed if you don't want to port it. I can also imagine no response (e.g., because the first response should occur, sooner or later, to the person making the suggestion).
