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

Re: /usr/local in some packages

On Tue, Sep 29, 1998 at 04:08:56AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 1998 at 12:23:37PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > > So we should either remove /usr/local from all packages, or tell dpkg to not
> > > > remove /usr/local.  I personally favour the former solution.
> > > 
> > > /usr/local should not be used in packages.  Thought that was already policy?
> > 
> > Right.  No package may install stuff in /usr/local nor in /opt.  Period.
> > 
> > I guess the only exceptions are perl and emacs where the package
> > should create the directory structure so people won't have to
> > guess them.
> Qt does this too, but that's because we're not allowed to move it from
> /usr/local.  I really think all these little compromises on policy are a bad
> thing because they cause problems like /usr/local symlinks being deleted. 
> This is Very Not Acceptable.

No, This Is Daft. If the license is _THAT_ restrictive that you can't even
install it into /usr, we should talk to Troll Tech or drop it. If it can't
be configured for /usr instead of /usr/local (non-modified-binary-syndrome),
we have 3 options:-

1. qt-src package (could this go into main?)
2. Install into /usr; symlink into /usr/local
3. Tell dpkg which directories it is _NOT_ to remove (via some configfile?)

Tom Lees <tom@lpsg.demon.co.uk> <tom@debian.org>  http://www.lpsg.demon.co.uk/
PGP Key: finger tom@master.debian.org, http://www.lpsg.demon.co.uk/pgpkeys.asc.

Reply to: