mezz7 at cox.net
Fri Apr 22 14:55:06 PDT 2005
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:42:31 -0500, Danny Pansters <danny at ricin.com> wrote:
> On Friday 22 April 2005 20:21, Gary Kline wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 01:01:30PM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
>> > You should forward this information to the freebsd-ports list. I'm
>> > they'd like to know this, because it's abnormal design. The conf file
>> > *should* be in /usr/local/etc and there *should* be a pkg-message file
>> > that tells the installer what to do post-install.
>> At least a symlink to /usr/local/etc, and the post-install note.
>> This brings up the qauestion of the Powers-that-Be creating
>> symlinks to /etc/local (as a min) and /etc/X11R6. (Should *ANY*
>> non-system GUI have its conf in /etc/X11R6/etc? ... [*mumble*])
> No, and in fact it would be better if /usr/X11R6 were a hard link
> to /usr/local, but this never happened. The /usr/X11R6 came into life
> of X IIRC and then got adapted by some X apps and then by gnome. So now
> stuck with two "3rd party software" trees/prefixes.
I am hoping to get all GNOME stuff move in LOCALBASE someday when I have
time. FreeBSD needs to remove one prefix either (LOCALBASE or X11BASE) to
have a prefix.
> It's indeed bad IMHO, but I'm sure that everytime there were also good
> to keep the /usr/X11R6 (for one thing: it's a dist).
> My EUR 0.02,
mezz7 at cox.net - mezz at FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome at FreeBSD.org
More information about the freebsd-ports