NetBSD actually puts everything "third party" that's built with pkgsrc
into /usr/pkg/ (or for some things /usr/X11R6, which is hated by many
people). /usr/local is reserved for "local" things built by the local
administrator.
note that the path `/usr/pkg' is configurable in netbsd
On 24 Jul 2001, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
>Michael Goetze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I just had a look. It is very similar to the NetBSD layout (which is
>> > very largely unchanged from 4.4BSD). There are some annoying
>> > differences, including /opt vs /usr/pkg, the whole BSD concept of
>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>it was written:
>On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 04:41:05PM -0400, Richard Tibbetts wrote:
>> For what its worth, debian doesn't seem to really use /opt. At least
>> not for debian packages, which tend to put their stuff right in /usr.
>
>I do like the idea of following the fr
Michael Goetze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I just had a look. It is very similar to the NetBSD layout (which is
> > very largely unchanged from 4.4BSD). There are some annoying
> > differences, including /opt vs /usr/pkg, the whole BSD concept of
> > libdata and libexec, etc. However, the over
Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 04:41:05PM -0400, Richard Tibbetts wrote:
> > For what its worth, debian doesn't seem to really use /opt. At least
> > not for debian packages, which tend to put their stuff right in /usr.
>
> I do like the idea of following the f
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 04:41:05PM -0400, Richard Tibbetts wrote:
> For what its worth, debian doesn't seem to really use /opt. At least
> not for debian packages, which tend to put their stuff right in /usr.
I do like the idea of following the freebsd (i think net and open bsd may do
this too) co
> I do like the idea of following the freebsd (i think net and open bsd
> may do this too) convention of putting everything that's not part of
> base in /usr/local/whatever - debian tends to put stuff in /usr for
> the most part - most of the debian systems i've worked on have barely
> anything in
Michael Goetze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Color me an ignorant NetBSD hacker -- what is FHS?
>
> Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
I never heard of it before.
I just had a look. It is very similar to the NetBSD layout (which is
very largely unchanged from 4.4BSD).
> I just had a look. It is very similar to the NetBSD layout (which is
> very largely unchanged from 4.4BSD). There are some annoying
> differences, including /opt vs /usr/pkg, the whole BSD concept of
> libdata and libexec, etc. However, the overall ideas seem to be
> pretty much similar.
You'l
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 04:06:20PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> (The lack of things like libexec seems like a serious deficit in the
> FHS -- it highly unclutters user executable directories. /opt is
> likely a religious issue which means trouble but if one anticipates
> trouble it is possible
Michael Goetze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And, looking at it from the other side, if all of the NetBSD core team
> jumped up today and said, "we want our entire distribution packaged
> Debian-style, and we want to make it our official distribution
> tomorrow," I would applaud them for their wis
> Color me an ignorant NetBSD hacker -- what is FHS?
Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
- Michael
=
"I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing
one can be sure of changing is oneself."
-- Aldous Huxley
_
Color me an ignorant NetBSD hacker -- what is FHS?
Perry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Yes, I can see that. There are things that I myself don't like about
> > Debian policy... such as FHS. I know that some pretty good BSD folks
> > have some pretty good reasons to dislike FHS. OTOH, there are s
Mark Eichin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > One misunderstanding that I have read, is that many Debian users believe
> > that the BSD ports/packages systems are week or don't work very well --
>
> The particular case that pkgsrc falls down on is upgrading a
> compatible library. In debian, if li
> Yes, I can see that. There are things that I myself don't like about
> Debian policy... such as FHS. I know that some pretty good BSD folks
> have some pretty good reasons to dislike FHS. OTOH, there are some
> advantages to the consistency given by the Debian system... there's
> lots of hypocrit
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 06:52:24PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
> err, i've confused myself above -- i didn't intend to become project
> leader, just someone to present views to the netbsd folks.. :-)
I've sent this letter privately (to someone :) already, but I'll tell
this is public -- we don't
What we really need here is a contact person... someone willing to go
to the NetBSD folks, explain to them what it is we want and how it can
halp what they want. We also need a contact person to organize
webspace, etc., from the Debian project. Now, some time ago, so
What we really need here is a contact person... someone willing to go
to the NetBSD folks, explain to them what it is we want and how it can
halp what they want. We also need a contact person to organize
webspace, etc., from the Debian project. Now, some time ago, someone
realize
> Well, let me note this: the NetBSD project consists of people who are
> far better at managing a base Unix and its kernel than at handling
> certain kinds of day to day usability. We've got crappy install tools
> and such, and we're well aware of it. Closer cooperation with people
> who've got a
19 matches
Mail list logo
