> 
> Hi
> 
> Is there anything wrong with using /usr/opt (or /usr/pkg) as the 
> "standard" location for "ported software", and having /usr/opt
> be a link to /usr/local (or /usr/local be a link to /usr/opt)? 

I personally think this is the best idea. Everyone sotisfied and no-one
hurt.

> 
> Folks who want everything to go into /usr/local get what they want -- 
> installations of the "packages" is into /usr/opt (which is "equivalent"
> to /usr/local).
> 
> Folks who want separate /usr/local and /usr/opt (myself included) 
> get what they want by simply removing the /usr/opt->/usr/local (or /usr/local->

It is very nice to have separated staff which was donated by third party
(*BSD package maintainer) and local stuff in /usr/local.

> /usr/opt) link -- "packages" go into /usr/opt, and don't 
> interfere with stuff in the /usr/local hierarchy.
> 
> Perhaps the install script asks "Do you want /usr/local to be 
> equivalent to /usr/opt [y/n]?" (and then DTRT), after a warning 
> that "ported software" will default to installing in /usr/opt....

Maybe install scripts should not care about it at all. Maybe just in
ca /usr/opt doesn't exist.


Jarda

-- 
Jaromir Dolecek             	ICS MU, Botanicka 68A, Brno, 60200, Czech Rep.
dolecek@ics.muni.cz			Tel.: +42-5-4151 2266
http://www.ics.muni.cz/~dolecek/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is better never to have been born.  But who among us has such luck?
One in a million, perhaps.