Subject: RE: Default package installation: intermixed vs. separate
To: None <>
From: Greg A. Woods <>
List: tech-pkg
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
> done.

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      <>      <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <>; Secrets of the Weird <>