Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!
From: Igor Sobrado (igor_at_no-spam.on.the.net)
Date: 12/17/04
- Previous message: Kristofer Pettijohn: "sparc64 port"
- In reply to: Thor Lancelot Simon: "Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!"
- Next in thread: Jerry Heyman: "Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 17 Dec 2004 18:33:28 +0100
Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <cprnm7$4fj$1@string1.ciencias.uniovi.es>,
> Igor Sobrado <igor@no-spam.on.the.net> wrote:
>>
>>between OS releases). I use /usr/contrib instead because it was
>>the place where that software was provided in earlier BSD releases
>
> That is wrong. If you don't believe me, get the BSD SCCS files and
> look for yourself.
>
> /usr/contrib was for software *contributed to Berkeley for inclusion in
> the BSD release, but not integrated into the main source tree*.
You are right, of course... in my phrase "that software" means for
example nmh (the package I used as example in the post) not any software
package. nmh was in /usr/contrib in, we say, BSD/OS. I try to
preserve the layout of filesystems. I prefer installing other
software packages in /usr/pkg using pkgsrc.
Cheers,
Igor.
- Previous message: Kristofer Pettijohn: "sparc64 port"
- In reply to: Thor Lancelot Simon: "Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!"
- Next in thread: Jerry Heyman: "Re: /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
