kpa said:
Little offtopic but I think that while the separation of the base system and installed applications is good the default
LOCALBASE that is now
/usr/local could be something else to really make the point that the ports/packages are not part of the OS.
/Applications?
I disagree here, what makes you say they're not part of the OS? In my opinion they are, especially if you look at ports such as
ports-mgmt/portmaster (I couldn't resist

) but also ports like
security/tripwire and
mail/postfix can have direct impact on your operating system.
Then there's another problem I wonder about, though it maybe based on false assumptions. Written as a "port maintainer want-to-be" (mark my words: within a year I'll be contributing things myself to the project

) I can't help wonder if this won't generate a
lot of overhead. By default many software packages default to installing into
/usr/local. This means that you won't need to patch them when you try to
assimilate, err:
include them in the ports collection.
Maybe this isn't a problem at all, but I can't help wonder how much extra overhead this would take. Talking both storage space (though I'll easily agree it's most likely neglectable) but also the demand you put on all port maintainers.
A personal opinion mind you; but I doubt the advantages outweighs the overall impact.
kpa said:
It's also little inconvinient that
LOCALBASE is a subdirectory of
/usr, for example mounting
/usr and only the base system parts of
/usr with
nullfs(5) to somewhere else gets a bit tricky.
I consider this point intriguing.
Pardon me if I overlook something here, but wouldn't putting
/usr/local onto a separate slice counter this problem?