Subject: Re: Package paths: consensus?
To: Curt Sampson <email@example.com>
From: Thorsten Frueauf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/10/1999 12:32:00
> Sorry, I'm really not clear on this. You object to putting them in
> /etc because you *don't* want them separated? Doesn't putting them
> somewhere other than /etc separate them from the rest of the config
> files system?
Ok, my english is lousy, maybe I should say it in other words:
I like things to be grouped a bit, so I can have a rough idea where
things come from and that there is a bit of order in where things are.
Let me show you my /usr/pkg/etc:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 11263 Nov 29 13:35 a2ps.cfg
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 4985 Nov 29 21:57 enscript.cfg
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 10203 Jan 6 1998 mailcap
Those come from a2ps, enscript and metamail. I am happy that those are
in /usr/pkg/etc. I don't want to see them in /etc. They are not part
of the system. And I see no problem sharing those.
And *if* there are problems sharing those and you really want tom in
/etc, you know which link to set. So the default behaviour is grouping
them into the prefix where the whole package is installed. The user
can decide to do it different.
I think Simon did propose something nice: make it an option in sysinst
where the user can decide if he wants /usr/pkg to be a link to /etc,
same with etc and whatever you want to redirect. But I like the defaults
like they are, and I think there are others that don't want to see
pkg files mixed with the system so that its no longer obvious where they
come from. It also minimizes the risk of flying garbage arround, if some
package has a false PLIST. And for developing packages it would be
a nightmare too in finding the bits a package installed. So far I was
happy to have the "sandbox" /usr/pkg.
Name : Thorsten Frueauf Milano@irc cri@onaliM //
E-Mail: email@example.com oder firstname.lastname@example.org \X/