[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#2182: perl shouldn't touch /usr/local

In message <199601191625.IAA27078@shellx.best.com>, Daniel Quinlan writes:
>Michael Alan Dorman <mdorman@lot49.med.miami.edu> writes:
>> Where, then, would the FSSSTND have me put CGI.pm (a piece of Perl
>> code that is not part of the standard perl distribution, likely
>> never will be, yet I need on just about every system I work with)?
>/usr, not /usr/local.

Why sould I be putting a local extension in /usr?  Isn't that exactly
what the FSSSTND says /usr/local is for?

>/usr/local is for *you* the system adminstrator, not you the package
>maintainer who wants to impose your will on everyone in the Debian

No one has proposed placing a single file in the directory that's
being created.  Besides which, we're not talking about imposing
imposing *my* will on anyone in the Debian community---I don't
maintain the bloody package.

What is in fact happened is that the maintainer of perl included a
directory (/usr/local/lib/site_perl) in the perl debian package.

This directory is compiled into the perl executable, and therefore
virtualy immutable without a recompilation and unknowable without
resorting to hacking

That directory is intended for holding extensions that I, the system
administrator, want to have available on my system for my users and I
to be able to access without having to muck about with @INC.

>It shouldn't even be in /usr.

_What_ shouldn't even be in /usr?  What are you talking about?  The
directory?  If not /usr, where should it be?

>This seems to be a growing problem with Debian.  Maintainers are
>sprucing up packages by adding their *personal* favorite bits of
>code.  You may need it, but *I* don't need it.

I haven't been talking about including a single piece of code, other
than to illustrate a particular problem that the inclusion of the
directory in question (empty) might solve.

Neither was the original post to which I responded talking about code
either included or excluded.  It, too, was talking about a directory.

I suggest you re-read the messages in question to see what was
actually said, since it seems to diverge from your perception.

>If you have to add unnecessary files to a package, make another
>package, but don't impose your preferences on everyone.  Debian
>maintainers should be adding bug-fixes and nothing else.

We're not talking about files.

>> Is it really the opinion of the FSSTND group that it is better for
>> me to have to hack a script to examine @INC than for the
>> distribution to go to the trouble of pointing out where I can put
>> local extensions so they will be treated in a sensible fashion?

>This question reminds me of "are you still beating your wife?".

Yes, it is sarcastic.

>No offense, but if it is a worthy extension, then I'll trust Larry
>Wall to include it.

We're not talking about adding a piece of code to the bloody package,
we're talking about including a directory *compiled into the perl
executable* in the debian package.  A directory that you can configure
using the perl compilation process (so presumably it has Larry's
blessing).  A directory that appropriatly falls under /usr/local,
since it's intended for _local extensions_.

>> If the answer is yes, then we shouldn't pay terribly slavish
>> attention to something that is so obviously inconsiderate of the
>> needs of real users.
>Don't you mean your needs?

Doesn't meet the needs of any user who wants to be able have a perl
executable that is configured to the best of its capabilities.

>> And is no, then how does the FSSSTND group reconcile the obviously
>> contradictory nature of their two opinions?
>I see no conflict.

Well, I can only assume this is because you did a bad job of reading
the messages in question--you didn't seem to be able to pick up that
we were talking about a directory, and that I discussed CGI.pm merely
as a concrete illustration.

"I thought I'd something more to say."

Reply to: