Re: "/usr/local" refs in docs

[Dirk.Eddelbuettel@qed.econ.queensu.ca]

  Bill Mitchell writes:
  Bill>  Yesterday, I said I'd counted 1300+ and info and man files which
  Bill> referred to /usr/local.  It later struck me that this number is
  Bill> totally unreasonable.  I think I reversed the sense of the test.
  Bill> 
  Bill> I've redone the test on what I currently have installed, and found 61
  Bill> files, a more believable number.  I've looked at some of these files,
  Bill> and would consider some of them OK because it's clear that they're
  Bill> speaking about /usr/local either in an example or as a "normal
  Bill> default" which may be different on a specific system (e.g., debian).
  Bill> Other of these files make flat statements such as "look in file
  Bill> /usr/local/xyz" which are incorrect on a debian system.

There's another, related, problem which is not as easy to spot and fix. The
FSSTBD (rightly) imposes some locations for config files, log files etc. Some
programs are configured by us at compile time to match, but we forgot to
update the doc. That is eg true for my 'acct' package..

I agree with what Bdale wrote yesterday. I think maintainers *should* fix
this in their packages. But I also feel that it would be counterproductive
for the project to carve this in stone as an absolute requirement.

--
Dirk.Eddelbuettel@qed.econ.queensu.ca          http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd