[ On Tue, March 25, 1997 at 14:05:09 (-0600), Scott Reynolds wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: DEC uses NetBSD 
>
> Even if you s/Berkeley/NetBSD/, how does it make sense to put ported
> software from a given third party under /usr/contrib, especially given
> that it probably wasn't contributed?  Is /usr/contrib being suggested
> simply because it's the best fit in hier(7), even if it gives an
> inaccurate impression?  (This is a philosophical question, and I will not
> argue the point to death; I just hope it's not ignored.)

Yes, I agree the proposed use of /usr/contrib and the definition don't
exactly agree.  The original intent though was for third-party projects.

The other reason for choosing /usr/contrib is that it's prior art --
i.e. BSDI's BSD/OS make this same use of the directory.  You certainly
can't say that all the software in BSD/OS /usr/contrib was contributed
specifically to BSDI, though indeed it is optional software that was
contributed by someone to the system.

I cannot say for certain, of course, but I'd guess the same person or
people who invented /usr/contrib in the first place are now responsible
for the use of /usr/contrib in BSD/OS.

I have no objections to /usr/opt, or even /usr/pkg, etc., just so long
as it's not /usr/local.

I originally suggested we avoid /usr/opt though, as anyone accustomed to
SysVr4 (and Solaris-2 in particular) may conclude that it's organized
with each package in a separate isolated sub-directory, and possibly
without a general /usr/opt/bin.  /usr/contrib implies keeping to the one
/usr/contrib/bin (mirroring the structure of /usr and /usr/local).

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 443-1734			VE3TCP			robohack!woods
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets Of The Weird <woods@weird.com>