[Slackbuilds-users] anyone comtemplating a lightweight vim build?

Grant g_r_a_n_t_ at dodo.com.au
Fri Sep 22 23:02:21 UTC 2006

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:02:09 -0500, Robby Workman <rworkman at slackbuilds.org> wrote:

>Grant wrote:
>> Raises an interesting issue, I believe all add-on packages to a distro 
>> are site specific, therefore belong in /usr/local, it is the correct place 
>> according to the <whatsit> standard.
>Well, that's not (IMHO) so well established.  From what I've read 
>of the FHS, locally compiled software (not packaged) goes into 
>/usr/local, while packaged software does not.  Based on that, and 
>since we're building packages with SlackBuild scripts, /usr/local 
>would not be appropriate (again, IMHO).  Of course, one could 
>argue that /usr is only for the base system, and all add-ons go 
>to /usr/local.  What to do?  :)

What _I_ do is keep /usr/local separate on boxen that matter, and non-OS 
(non-distro?) software goes into /usr/local -- most is scripts I write, 
and the odd non-slack package compiled from source, I don't use third 
party SlackBuilds ;)  I trust the source to carry enough bugs...
>In reference to the kernel source location, I don't think I 
>follow - what's the problem with that?

Should be unpacked and compiled as user (kernel.org kernels), Linus said 
so about 2000, the quote is linked from kernelnewbies.org.  Many still 
argue the kernel tarball has 'wrong' permissions --> these people are 
those who dangerously unpack tarballs as root.  

But I'm not on a campaign to change slackware, I ignore the kernel source 
from slack and do that part 'my' way: 
  <http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/bash/kernel/> :)


More information about the Slackbuilds-users mailing list