Subject: RE: Prebuilt binaries with /usr/local?
To: Paul Hoffman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Dave Burgess <email@example.com>
Date: 01/05/2001 08:37:47
In my mind, there's only one way to deal with the "problem" for people that
prefer packages be installed in /usr/local. Symlink '/usr/local/' to
'/usr/pkg/'. This way, you can set LOCALBASE to /usr/local for the things
you actually compile locally, and allows 'pkg_info' differentiation between
precompiled and self compiled packages. It also gets around the problem of
instructions that assume /usr/local when the package is installed in
Either way, I would really *not* like to see two entire package trees, the
only difference being LOCALBASE settings.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
> Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:04 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Prebuilt binaries with /usr/local?
> I understand that all the prebuilt binaries use /usr/pkg for history
> sake. However, it is clear that /usr/local is probably more desired
> by many people in practice. Would the package gods consider having
> *two* trees at
> ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/packages/<release>/<arch>/? Add in a
> layer of "usrpkg" and "usrlocal", with the current directories
> symlinked to "usrpkg".
> --Paul Hoffman