Re: /usr/local

[Gabor Fleischer <flocsy@mail.mtesz.hu>]

On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Brian Ristuccia wrote:

> On my debian box, /usr/local was a symbolic link to /local, so boxes NFS
 
> Unfortunately, some package I upgraded today messed around with my symlink,
> deleting it and then creating an empty /usr/local tree. I can't figure out
> which package is responsible to file a bug.

> ./share
> ./bin
> ./man
> ./lib
> ./lib/ghostscript
> ./lib/ghostscript/common
> ./lib/ghostscript/5.10
> ./lib/ghostscript/fonts
> ./include
> ./sbin
> ./src

Hmm. This looks like gs did it. But there's something I don't
understand: why are empty subdirectorys there? I understand that it had to
create lib, and then lib/ghostcript, but why had it make the other dirs,
where it didn't put files to?

BTW I think this is not a bug of gs.deb (only if putting files under
/usr/local is a bug from an official deb (is it?)) but dpkg. I guess this
would happen to any package which requires any dir under /usr/local.

PS: why doesn't mc show the "CONTENTS/usr/local" dir if it is in the
data.tar.gz??

 Flocsy

Gabor Fleischer
MAILTO: flocsy@mtesz.hu       URL: http://www.mtesz.hu/~flocsy
SMS: flocsysms@mtesz.hu       ICQ UIN: 27733935