Subject: RE: Default package installation: intermixed vs. separate
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/10/1999 12:42:10
[ On Sun, January 10, 1999 at 08:57:20 (-0700), Tim Rightnour wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: Default package installation: intermixed vs. separate
> Whoooo.. thats scarry.. meaning if the user doesn't manually create
> /usr/pkg.. it installs packages in /usr??
> I dont like that idea one bit.. no commercial operating system does that..
Isn't this all politics? Is there any technical reason why installing
packages into /usr is bad (especially if you keep in mind that the pkg
system will include a database that lets the origin of every file be
(I suppose if you install *everything* in /usr/pkgsrc then /usr/bin
get's rather large, but presumably someone with the resources to insall
every package will have a system capable of dealing with a large
> Even if you all ignore me.. I might plead with you to warn the user loudly
> that this is about to occur, and give him a chance to bail before the damage is
A warning is indeed a damn good idea.
One might even require that a "/usr/pkg" exist, whether it's a
directory, or a symlink.
It could point at "/usr" to enable the "mixed" variation. (Of course
this latter idea suggests that without a feature to separately identify
config and run-time files in PLIST one would also probably want to have
/usr/pkg/etc and /usr/pkg/var symlinks.)
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <email@example.com> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>