Re: base-files does not create /usr/local directories

[Mark Eichin <eichin@cygnus.com>]

> I am closing out this bug. Debian packages are not allowed to touch anything
> under /usr/local, thus I can not create /usr/local/bin in base-files .

Umm, that's not actually true.

I quote policy/ch-binarypkg s3.2.9:

    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 <code>/usr/local</code> by supplying it in the
    filesystem archive for unpacking by <kbd>dpkg</kbd>.  The
    <code>/usr/local</code> directory itself and all the subdirectories created
    by the package should have permissions 2775 (group-writeable and
    set-group-id) and be owned by <code>root.staff</code>.<P>

    In the future it will be possible to tell <kbd>dpkg</kbd> not to unpack
    files matching certain patterns, so that system administrators who do
    not wish these directories in <code>/usr/local</code> do not need to have
    them.

Thus, I think it's reasonable for base-files to create /usr/local
directories.  (If nothing else, it lets people know up front that they
have to do work to handle a read-only /usr/local...)  This certainly
doesn't mean that base-files *has* to provide /usr/local/bin, but it's
not clear that it shouldn't...