On 30 Dec 2000, Nathan J. Williams wrote:

# Greywolf <greywolf@starwolf.com> writes:
# 
# > That way lies Linux, and it's one of the things I *hate* about it.
# > By inferring the above, why separate out X11 stuff?
# 
# Eliminating the file-system level distinction between "base" and
# "third-party" data is a good that some Linux distributions have
# done. The fact that Linux did it doesn't make it bad. I'm sorry you're
# so opposed to it.

The fact that they did it doesn't make it GOOD, either.  It's a jumbled
mess, to me.


# > Packages go in /usr/pkg or /usr/local (my preference).
# > X stuff goes in /usr/X11R6 or, more simply, /usr/X11.
# 
# X11R6 has its own tree for "legacy" reasons, nothing else. I'd be
# perfectly happy to see everything under /usr/X11 folded back into just
# plain /usr.

So do that yourself, but <mantra>DON'T FORCE EVERYONE ELSE TO DO IT</mantra>.
I like knowing AT A GLANCE, withOUT having to go through the pkg database
what's part of the base system.  If it ain't part of the base, it
doesn't belong in /, /usr.  End Of Story.

# > Everything that happens to NetBSD to make it less BSD-like is a nail in
# > its coffin.  What's going to be the differentiating factor once all these
# > gratuitous changes are put in place?
# 
# The code is the difference. I like to think that we have
# higher-quality code, both for the kernel and userlevel. What we have
# on the filesystem and how we arrange it are two separate issues, and I
# hope that our dedication to high-quality programming doesn't
# senselessly tie us to an archaic filesystem layout.

It may be old, but it has a purpose for things far beyond "legacy" reasons.
If you want your X stuff in /usr, you do realise you're free to rebuild
from the source tree with ProjectRoot=/usr.

Similarly, I have LOCALBASE set to /usr/local instead of /usr/pkg because
I don't need *that* much granularity.  But the ability to differentiate
between base and non-base is important to me.  It's the difference between
being able to put / and /usr on a ZIP disk as an emergency boot disk,
and not.

Please take note that I am not telling people to go out and do things
my way, but if you're developing for core and determining the flow of
NetBSD, please make the merge you're proposing here an OPTION.  I don't
like it and one of the things NetBSD has thus far afforded me is
flexibility to change what I don't like.  Don't take that away.

#         - Nathan

				--*greywolf;
--
"I didn't get where I am today without using BSD."