Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!

From: Igor Sobrado (igor_at_no-spam.on.the.net)
Date: 12/13/04

  • Next message: Frederick Bruckman: "Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!" 
    Date: 13 Dec 2004 18:13:42 +0100

    Frederick Bruckman <fredb@immanent.net> wrote:
    > In article <cpjm7o$v1d$1@string1.ciencias.uniovi.es>,
    > Igor Sobrado <igor@no-spam.on.the.net> writes:
    >>
    >> NetBSD 2.0 has removed /usr/local. I understand that this directory
    >> will not be used in the future. From my knowledge, it was not used
    >> for its real purpose since mid-90's at least. It should have software
    >> developed locally (e.g., shell scripts and tools not generally
    >> available), and not third party packages. That is the reason
    >> /opt exists in SVR4.x and /usr/pkg in NetBSD.
    >
    > It's been "removed by request", so that NetBSD won't screw with it.
    > "/usr/pkg" exists exactly so that the package system will leave folks'
    > "/usr/local" alone. Most systems will still have a "/usr/local", as
    > they do a "/home", which we also install nothing into.

    Ok, I understand that /usr/local has been removed because some
    users do not want it. There is a /usr/pkg in the system that
    is useful for installing packages from pkgsrc. As most people
    do not develop software locally in these days, /usr/local is
    something that can be safely removed. In the last decade, it
    has not been used for the purpose it was initially designed.

    But the question remains, though:

    >> If it is right, entries related with /usr/local should be removed
    >> from both the shell initialization scripts and /etc/man.conf, as
    >> this directory will not contain binaries or man pages again, though.
    >
    > I believe that would be wrong. What would be the benefit? I believe
    > it would only annoy users on new installations.

    Agreed, removing references to /usr/local from the shell initialization
    scripts and man configuration file will be annoying for people that
    installs software on those directories. But, does it make sense
    staying with those entries in the default configuration of NetBSD when
    /usr/local has been officially dropped? Well, at this moment it is not
    a technical issue but a philosophical question!

    Cheers,
    Igor.

  • Next message: Frederick Bruckman: "Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!"
    • Quantcast