Re: PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ?
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 16:46:02 UTC
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. -- Ian