On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:10:12PM +0100, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:

quoted text
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:53:52PM +0200, Michael Dexter wrote:

>

> > >Are they willing to take a suggestions from the users side?

> >

> > Ask them.

>

> During last 3 weeks I tried to contact 3 (yes, three) devs. None of them

> responded even with "get lost".

>

> > However, you will get far further with suggestions backed by a solid

> > understanding of each issue, plus funding. The benefits of a broad yet

> > shallow feature set can be found in most alternative operating systems and

> > you are welcome to use them.

>

> Who said, it must be about new features? There is an issue, about which I

> wrote already - OK, once more:

>

>   I noticed, that default path, where software from binary pkg and "ports"

>   gets unpacked, is /usr/local hierarchy - unfortunately, it's also the

>   "traditional" default of every individual source *.tar.gz package - such

>   way the software ported to OpenBSD gets mixed with any other package,

>   which I had installed. Wouldn't be reasonable to create new hierarchy,

>   especially for the "native" OpenBSD software (from binary packages and

>   ports) - I mean: something like /usr/pkg in NetBSD?

>

> It doesn't need any funding to fix this.

In essence, this is suggesting to move third party software

installed by the project's third party software management

tools out of /usr/local, so that it is out of the way for

users who want to install software on their system without

using the project's third party software management tools.
I can imagine one response:  Port whatever it is, or else

change where it will be installed if you don't want to port

it.  I can also imagine no response (e.g., because the first

response should occur, sooner or later, to the person making

the suggestion).