From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:12:20 -0600
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net>,
	"Anthony Sorace" <a@9srv.net>
From: "EBo" <ebo@sandien.com>
Message-ID: <twig.1269583940.65104@swcp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20AAD8EC-F932-4BFD-9056-04B15A337687@9srv.net>
References: <20100325114948.GA7249@polynum.com>
	<20100325114948.GA7249@polynum.com>
	<twig.1269564722.70572@swcp.com>,
	<twig.1269564722.70572@swcp.com> <twig.1269579741.2777@swcp.com>,
	<twig.1269579741.2777@swcp.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Man pages for add-ons
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f35ee10c-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Anthony Sorace <a@9srv.net> said:

> 	Unix has two camps for approaching this problem /usr/local and /opt.
> While they're almost never followed well on modern unix systems, the
> idea is basically a global local overlay vs. a per-package overlay.
>
> 	The /usr/local approach takes all packages not part of the base
> system and creates a "local root", a global mirror of (roughly) the
> root file system. Those poor souls don't have bind to work with, so
> everything ends up "knowing" to look in /bin and /usr/local/bin, /etc
> and /usr/local/etc, and so on. Packages from multiple sources are all
> intermixed in one /usr/local, so you've basically got the base system
> vs. everything else. EBo's /sys_aps is basically a recreation of /usr/
> local.
>
> ...

Actually no.  I am advocating for the /opt (per-package) model.  Sorry that
was not clear.  I simply called it sys_apps in an attempt to make it clear
that I was talking about installed system wide apps.  Sorry for not being clearer.

  EBo --