Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: Re: Deficiencies in Debian]
Instead of putting "packages" under /usr/local then, packages would go in
/usr/packages. /usr/local would be used as now, for things the package
management system doesn't know about.
For those who hate typing, I would recommend /usr/packages -> /usr/pak
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 5:49:35 AM, Jonathan wrote:
> > Not really. /usr/local is a handy way to distinguish between the *base*
> > system, and the addon packages, which, guess what, are all compiled locally
> > under FreeBSD
> You, like my friend, miss the point. The *base* system is what is
> installed by the package manager, period. We have a series of "base" packages
> which form the core, but Debian does not make the distinction of have and have
> nots. What *YOU* consider addon is base to me, and vice-versa. Therefore the
> only logical way to make the distinction is by what is user compiled that the
> package manager doesn't know about, and what isn't that the package manager
> *does* know about. Hence, /usr and /usr/local.
> I already have problems with the package manager stomping all over what
> local administrators may do with they're system, I'd be quite pissed if
> something that I placed in /usr/local was overridden as well.