Re: PKGSRC will be officially supported as of the next release

["Liam J. Foy" <liamfoy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10:07, Thu 01 Sep 05, Marcin Jessa wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 08:21:33 +0200
> "Martin P. Hellwig" <mhellwig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Matthew Dillon wrote:
> > <cut>
> > >     This is proven out by the number
> > >     of commits to dfports recently (just 2 files in the last 60 days, and
> > >     18 in the last 90).  dfports has clearly outlived its usefulness.
> > <cut>
> > >     Having DragonFly support the PKGSRC environment will also be beneficial
> > >     to PKGSRC as it will add another operating system and ensure even better
> > >     portability.  NetBSD's support of PKGSRC will greatly reduce problems
> > >     we would otherwise face when we start working on 64 bit support.
> > <cut>
> > 
> > I heartly agree, but I wonder how much it will be the "official" port 
> > infrastructure, for example (no intend to bikeshed coloring, as long as 
> > its green) I being a long and hardish FreeBSD user found /usr/local the 
> > logical places for the installed ports, do we intend to default pkgsrc 
> > packages installation to there?
> 
> On NetBSD all you need is to set LOCALBASE=/usr/local in /etc/mk.conf to achieve the same goal.
> I do that myself as I often use the same config files on FreeBSD and NetBSD and do not want to change all the paths in the configs.
> This is one more proof of PKGSRC's flexibility.
> It's actually very logical to put your own applications compiled by hand to /usr/local and the ones from pkgsrc's to their own place.
> 

I personally like everything being under /usr/pkg/. It just feels
more right(tm). However, am happy with the decision of Matt.

-- 
		- Liam J. Foy
		liamfoy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
		http://www.bsd-systems.co.uk