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

From: Willem Jan Withagen via freebsd-current <>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:32:05 +0200
On 16-7-2021 18:46, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-07-16 at 09:01 -0600, Alan Somers wrote:
>> 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
> I have a hierarchy on my machines rooted at /local and /local/bin is
> before /bin and /usr/bin in my PATH, so I can override system tools
> when I explicitly want to without suffering any problems of an
> unexpected override from installing a port or package.
> If you're using ports as a development environment to work on a new
> gstat replacement, you could do something similar and put PREFIX=/local
> in your port makefile while you're developing on it.

Cannot recall running into any issues over a long time.
I'm only annoyed by having to fix access to installed ports when this 
is not done...

Perhaps just don't do this for root?

Received on Sun Aug 15 2021 - 12:32:05 UTC

Original text of this message