[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: freebsd-current
Subject: Re: PATH: /usr/local before or after /usr ?
From: Willem Jan Withagen via freebsd-current <freebsd-current () freebsd ! org>
Date: 2021-08-15 12:32:05
Message-ID: 965c2a61-3499-4bdd-c72e-7bcaf4abd2d2 () digiware ! nl
[Download RAW message or body]
On 16-7-2021 18:46, Ian Lepore wrote:
> 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.
+1
Cannot recall running into any issues over a long time.
I'm only annoyed by having to fix access to installed ports when this
reorder
is not done...
Perhaps just don't do this for root?
--WjW
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic