Our current policy about /usr/local ...
- To: Debian developers list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Our current policy about /usr/local ...
- From: Santiago Vila Doncel <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 00:07:20 +0100 (MET)
- Message-id: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970105000207.8140C-100000@rosa>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I did a "diff base.list base-files.list" (from Debian 1.1 to Debian 1.2)
and found this:
Which is our current policy about /usr/local ?
I remember having installed binutils "by hand" after installing the base
system, and I received a complaint from ldconfig:
ldconfig: warning: can't open /usr/local/lib (No such file or directory),
Should I report a bug against ld.so because of this?
Every package that searches a number of directories or files for
something (for example, looking for shared libraries in /lib or
/usr/lib) should search an appropriate directory in /usr/local too.
So it seems that ld.so is right. (?)
Does the above paragraph applies to PATH in /root/.bash_profile ?
/usr/local/bin and /usr/local/sbin have been removed from PATH there.
Anybody there could please tell me what's wrong?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Santiago Vila <firstname.lastname@example.org>
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com