On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:52:36PM -0800, Ken Irving wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 10:18:45PM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 01:05:10PM +1100, hce wrote:
> > > On 10/31/07, Chris Bannister <mockingbird@earthlight.co.nz> wrote:
> > >
> > > > How are you installing mutt? Are you compiling mutt from source or
> > > > trying to install the Debian binary package?
> > > I am compiling mutt from the source, so I can install it in my local
> > > directory, rather goes to /usr.
> >
> > If all you want to do is put the mutt stuff in /usr/local, why not just
> > unpack the deb and place it manually? (or are search paths for libs
> > coded in the binary, I don't know)?
>
> This (or similar) kind of thing has been discussed before on the list,
> and ISTR that the debian packaging is pretty well hard-coded to non-local
> (i.e., the standard) target directories. It'd be nice to be able to
> apt{whatever} install to local trees, but there's just no support in
> the underlying system for this. I can't recall just why I ever wanted
> this feature, but would be interested if unpacking the deb and manually
> placing was a viable approach.
In a similar vein, I've wondered about regular users installing
packages when they aren't (or can't get) root. ITSM it might be nice
to be able to install in $HOME/blah as a fallback when installing as
non-root. BUt then there are potentially big security holes,
duplication of binaries, etc associated with that. But still, on
occaision, I see no problem with users apt-getting some mail client or
other user oriented package into their local tree. They can already
build from source to do this, so why not a .deb?
A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature