[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why were all DJB's ports removed? No more qmail?
- To: ports_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: Why were all DJB's ports removed? No more qmail?
- From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb_(_at_)_cr_(_dot_)_yp_(_dot_)_to>
- Date: 4 Sep 2001 21:51:58 -0000
- Automatic-legal-notices: Copyright 2001, D. J. Bernstein. My transmission of this message to you does not constitute a copyright waiver or any other limitation of my rights, even if you have told me otherwise.
- Mail-followup-to: ports_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
Dan Weeks writes:
> I don't like /package.
Why not? What's wrong with it?
> I also don't like all the config files being in /package. I want them
> in a per machine location, like /etc.
/package supports per-machine directories. RTFM.
> The main issue here is that the way you do things is not the way that
> OpenBSD has chosen to do things by default.
Please give a coherent explanation of that choice. Why am I allowed to
create /usr/local/share/blahblahblah but not /package/admin/daemontools?
> The OpenBSD team has made it's decision on the side of safety
Huh? /package is much safer than /usr/local, because the /package
namespace is globally allocated.
> Any software that I compile and forces me to use a location not of my
> choosing, be that /package or /usr/local or /chimpnet, is wrong.
Let me know when you've managed to move /bin/sh.
> As to the point of /package making it easier for developers and users,
> that is pure bullcrap. Almost every user I have to deal with has no
> clue about where stuff is installed and could care less about it.
> They just want it to run. It is invisible to them. It is in some
> path some tech setup
A huge number of people are generating the types of complaints shown in
It doesn't matter whether you call these people ``users'' or ``techs''
or ``administrators.'' What matters is solving the problem.
Visit your host, monkey.org