Subject: Re: packages writing files out of LOCALBASE
To: None <email@example.com>
From: James K. Lowden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/02/2002 12:39:00
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002 18:03:34 +0100, Julio Merino <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:47:42 -0500
> "James K. Lowden" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Really, I think it's a shame bash doesn't get installed
> > right into /usr/bin.
> No. packages get installed into a default prefix, which is /usr/pkg or
> /usr/X11R6. No package can be installed anywhere else. This is...
> well... inconsistant. If you really want bash in /usr/bin, just go and
> copy it there, or set your package installation base to /usr.
I understand my options. What I'm saying is, if you reduce the
convenience of installing a package, you reduce its convenience. You want
to do that in the name of [other goodness]. Let's at least acknowledge
that having "make install" Just Work has its advantages. If we say
pkgsrc must never ever ever write outside LOCALBASE, we reduce its
> The administrator will notice the message. IIRC, if you do not add bash
> to/etc/shells, chsh will fail if you try to use bash.
/bin/sh will not complain.
$ ln -s `which bash` ~/tmp/t
> An administrator must
> know how to install shells, and if he doesn't, MESSAGE will tell it.
You're saying a calm, competent admin will see and do the right thing.
I'm saying there are other kinds of admins. Lots of people who install
NetBSD at home to learn, and it's easy to miss a message if you redirect
the console output to a file (which I do, for my future reference).