On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 06:58:44PM +0100, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote: > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 12:41:46PM -0500, William Boshuck wrote: > > > > Yes, there's no point in making silly changes. > > > > Case in point: Suggesting that the ports and > > packages infrastructure be modified > > I'm not sure (not being OpenBSD developer), that one has to use such Very > Important Terms like "the ports and packages infrastructure"... it seems, > that perhaps (I may be wrong) it could take just to change default value > for LOCALBASE in mk.conf. OK, not quite sure at this moment. > > As I can see (correct me, if I'm wrong), perhaps I can change it on my own, > if I won't use "binary" packages, just relying on ported sources, right?
yes, at least that's the idea. > > to install > > third party software other than where the > > developers seem to want it so go (aka /usr/local), > > whereas the existing conventions introduce no > > problems whatsoever for any user with a clue. > > Searching the net, I've found an old thread, where the others expressed the > advantages of such solution: > > http://www.bsdforums.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-12003.html > > #v+ > For example, NetBSD has its own lpr lpq lprm commands to do with its "lpd". > CUPS (the Common Unix Printing System) has a set of commands called lpr lpq > lprm, and they are NOT the same as the BSD ones. What if you needed both? If > you installed it into the main area, it would overwrite the NetBSD ones - > that wouldn't be what you wanted!!! > > It's a GREAT way to keep your BSD system clean from the additional packages > you may wish to run. ALSO, it makes system upgrades cleaner too! It would > prevent the reverse of the pre-mentioned example - where an upgrade would > overwrite the CUPS commands with the BSD ones - again, not what you would > want! > > [..] > > The reasoning follows along the lines of: keep the OS separate from > admin-installed apps. This means that the base OS goes under one directory > tree, and everything else goes under a separate directory tree. > > NetBSD went one further and separated user-installed (source compiled) apps > from the system-managed (pkgsrc / packages) apps. Why? Because doing a > manual install of AppX into /usr/local prevents you from shooting yourself > in the foot when you test out AppX2 via pkgsrc. Things don't get overwritten > accidentally. Things in /usr/pkg are managed by the system package > management tools, things in /usr/local are managed (or not) by you. > #v- > > ...and I agree with the above. > > OK, no flamewar - that'll be all from my side - I can live with current > setting. But it doesn't mean, that I'm unable to see, that it _can_ be > solved a little bit better. why? if you are manually running ./configure, is it that much more to add --prefix=/opt or whatever? if the argument is to keep manually installed programs separate, isn't that the responsibility of the person doing the manual installation? and if some software has no --prefix type option, then isn't that really the fault of the software in question, as opposed to ports? also, if you can compile a source package, building a basic port should be doable. and from there, documenting dependency info is probably useful anyway, right? > pozdrawiam / regards > > Zbigniew Baniewski > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
