On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, Mike Long wrote:

> >Just to throw my 2c in...  I think it is a poor idea to install
> >distributed code into /usr/local.  The point of /usr/local has always
> >been to seperate out code put together on site (including ported on
> >site) from vendor code...   If this distinction is lost, I, at least,
> >will need to set up a new place for truly local binaries...
> 
> I would not consider the contents of the ports tree to be 'vendor
> code'.  The ports tree and binary packages are created by users for
> other users.  None of it is maintained by the NetBSD project (although
> the people who do maintain it may also work on NetBSD), so it isn't
> NetBSD code.  /usr/local is the proper place for it.

As someone else pointer out, /usr/local is the place for *local* code...
(That is, code built on site.)  I do _not_ want to count on the package
tree never conflicting with my taste in installed packages...

--
				Jim Wise
				jim.wise@turner.com