Re: Re: Debian BSD.. cool idea
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 09:31:55PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> separation which BSD does, which is good IMHO. But I don't know
> FreeBSD well enough to be sure about any of this.
It all comes down to this. Use FreeBSD first, make suggestions next.
If suggestions are rejected, continue work on Debian/FreeBSD.
>
> Those are weird directories. /usr is by definition (in the FHS
> anyway) fairly static -- so /usr/local/var is a contradiction to me.
The FHS is a load of crap. There are plently of standards existing
beforehand for the layout of the UNIX filesystem.. Linux, aiming to act
exactly like a UNIX, should follow these, not set their own standards.
/usr/local/var is rarely occupied.. some ircds and whatnot use it.
But, when there are non-essential logs/spools placed by a program that
was installed by the user, they are free to use it.
> > While the feature is lacking on paper, Real Life Usage(TM) shows ports/pkg_add
> > to be superior. (Of course, YMMV)
>
> How so?
I've never had problems updating my ports and packages.
I've had to shuffle with apt-get a few times to get things to work sometimes.
>
> > I don't see how Debian handles dependencies better. DEPENDS with
> > ports/packages works fine.
>
> Conflicts are, in our experience, a necessary part of the dependency
> system. Debian wouldn't be nearly as good without it. And the virtual
> package system, for that matter.
There are only a handful of the 3,071 ports/packages that out and out
conflict with another. And it is documented in the readme..
Less than ideal, yes, but it is being addressed in designing the 2nd-gen
package system. Debian can feel free to step in and relicense code/donate
time to help make our package system better. Everyone would be happier :)
-Dan
Reply to: