Re: /usr/local again
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 01:33:57PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > we do have the authority to create packages that will optionally link to
> > libraries there, use fonts from there, etc. read only however. do you see
> > the distinction?
>
> I'm not even sure about that. Shouldn't we be completely ignorant of
> the local heiarchy?
There's ignorance of the local hierarchy, and then there's outright
hostility to the local hierarchy.
As an example, consider shared libaries and /etc/ld.so.conf.
"Ignorance" says that the default configuration file won't include
/usr/local/lib, but the admin is free to add it herself.
"Hostility" (or "antagonism") says that the dynamic loader should
explicitly check whether the directory path is under /usr/local - and
refuse to load any libraries from those paths since those libraries
could be corrupted.
I think most people would agree that ignorance is acceptable, but
hostility is not. Hostility is also pointless, since the administrator
would simply copy these files from /usr/local into whereever the
other files are stored, and *that* would destroy one of the primary
benefits of package management!
--
Bear Giles
bgiles@coyotesong.com
Reply to: