PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ?

Reply: Michael Gmelin : "Re: PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ?"
Reply: Cameron Katri via freebsd-current : "Re: PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ?"
Reply: Ian Lepore : "Re: PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ?"
In reply to: {{ref.name}}: "{{ref.subject}}"
Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]

From: Alan Somers <asomers_at_freebsd.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 15:01:49 UTC

FreeBSD has always placed /usr/local/X after /usr/X in the default PATH.
AFAICT that convention began with SVN revision 37 "Initial import of 386BSD
0.1 othersrc/etc".  Why is that?  It would make sense to me that
/usr/local/X should come first.  That way programs installed from ports can
override FreeBSD's defaults.  Is there a good reason for this convention,
or is it just inertia?
-Alan