Re: Name clash in prospective package
Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Name clash in prospective package "):
> Ian Jackson:
> > The point of not putting things in /usr/local isn't, as I see it, so
>
> Well, I'm not in full agreement, but it's not important enough.
Fair enough.
> > I propose the following resolution:
> I can live with the what you propose.
Good. I've added the section below.
Ian.
<sect1><tt>/usr/local</> - for the use of the system administrator
<p>
As mandated by the FSSTND no package should place any files in
<tt>/usr/local</>, either by putting them in the filesystem archive to
be unpacked by <prgn/dpkg/ or by manipulating them in their maintainer
scripts.
<p>
Every package that searches a number of directories or files for
something (for example, looking for shared libraries in <tt>/lib</> or
<tt>/usr/lib</>) should search an appropriate directory in
<tt>/usr/local</> too.
<p>
In order that the system administrator may know where to place
additional files a package should create an empty directory in the
appropriate place in <tt>/usr/local</> by supplying it in the
filesystem archive for unpacking by <prgn/dpkg/. The
<tt>/usr/local</> directory itself and all the subdirectories created
by the package should have permissions 2775 (group-writeable and
set-group-id) and be owned by <tt/root.staff/.
<p>
In the future it will be possible to tell <prgn/dpkg/ not to unpack
files matching certain patterns, so that system administrators who do
not wish these directories in <tt>/usr/local</> do not need to have
them.
Reply to: