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

• Previous message: Igor Sobrado: "Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!"
• In reply to: Igor Sobrado: "Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!"
• Next in thread: Igor Sobrado: "Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!"
• Reply: Igor Sobrado: "Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:38:59 -0600

In article <cpkik6$vs1$1@string1.ciencias.uniovi.es>,
        Igor Sobrado <igor@no-spam.on.the.net> writes:
> Frederick Bruckman <fredb@immanent.net> wrote:
>> In article <cpjm7o$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....
>>
>> 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.

Who are these "most people"? Why do we ship a compiler with the a base
system, if no one codes? ;-)

Honestly, if you install commonly available software out-of-the-box,
it'll go to "/usr/local" by default; your scripts are going to go in
"/usr/local/bin", and so on. I doubt if you'll still have an empty
"/usr/local" after you've been running NetBSD for a while.

> 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!

I don't believe "/usr/local" has been "dropped". I believe, rather, it's
been declared hands off, like "/home". In other words, it's designated
as being under the complete control of the user. If "/usr/local" were
universally despised, that would be one thing, but that's not the case.
What happened (IIRC), was that one developer, who apparently arranges
his "/usr/local" like "/opt", insisted that we stop installing the empty
"man" and "share" directories, and no one could see a reason to keep on
doing that.

-- 
Frederick

• Previous message: Igor Sobrado: "Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!"
• In reply to: Igor Sobrado: "Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!"
• Next in thread: Igor Sobrado: "Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!"
• Reply: Igor Sobrado: "Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]