Re: Bug#57218: /usr/local erased
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 12:08:43AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> That may be a really bad idea, if ghostscript allows for local
> configuration and input files to be put in /usr/local. If that is the
> case (like /usr/local/share/emacs/site-list and TeTeX's site-tex, or
> whatever it si called), removing the directories may be detrimental
> to the ease of use of the package. Surely we can create packages that
> do not remove /usr/local/ dirs, while still creasting and using them?
I think I have to explain the problem which hits the ghostscript package
here. I added /usr/local/ghostscript/... to the package itself (not the
install scripts) which is in violation with policy. Of course I promptly
got a report on it so I fixed it and uploaded the repaired package.
This new package does not include /usr/local into the data.tar.gz anymore
so it seems like dpkg decides to remove /usr/local if it is a symlink as
dpkg think it was installed by the old gs package.
So what can I do about this? I think there is nothing I can do apart from
documenting this problem. But the package which had /usr/local in it was
only uploaded to potato so only those users who upgrade often are hit.
Upgrading from slink will not exploit this problem.
So I think I won't do anything about it. Opinions?
cu
Torsten
--
Torsten Landschoff Bluehorn@IRC <torsten@debian.org>
Debian Developer and Quality Assurance Committee Member
Reply to: