Dan Weeks writes:
> I don't like /package.

Why not? What's wrong with it?

> I also don't like all the config files being in /package. I want them
> in a per machine location, like /etc.

/package supports per-machine directories. RTFM.

> The main issue here is that the way you do things is not the way that
> OpenBSD has chosen to do things by default.

Please give a coherent explanation of that choice. Why am I allowed to
create /usr/local/share/blahblahblah but not /package/admin/daemontools?

> The OpenBSD team has made it's decision on the side of safety

Huh? /package is much safer than /usr/local, because the /package
namespace is globally allocated.

> Any software that I compile and forces me to use a location not of my
> choosing, be that /package or /usr/local or /chimpnet, is wrong.

Let me know when you've managed to move /bin/sh.

> As to the point of /package making it easier for developers and users,
> that is pure bullcrap. Almost every user I have to deal with has no
> clue about where stuff is installed and could care less about it.
> They just want it to run. It is invisible to them. It is in some
> path some tech setup

A huge number of people are generating the types of complaints shown in
http://cr.yp.to/slashpackage/studies.html.

It doesn't matter whether you call these people ``users'' or ``techs''
or ``administrators.'' What matters is solving the problem.

---Dan

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]