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

Re: /usr/local again



On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 09:55:45AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> IMHO, /usr/local should be for local system administrator use, and no
> package should ever touch it (although setting up default search paths
> to include /usr/local is probably a good idea).

From Debian-Policy:

   However, the package should create empty directories below /usr/local
   so that the system administrator knows where to place site-specific
   files. These directories should be removed on package removal if they
   are empty.
[...]
   Since /usr/local may be mounted read-only from a remote server, these
   directories have to be created and removed by the postinst and prerm
   maintainer scripts. These scripts must not fail if either of these
   operations fail. (In the future, it will be possible to tell dpkg not
   to unpack files matching certain patterns, so that the directories can
   be included in the .deb packages and system administrators who do not
   wish these directories in /usr/local do not need to have them.)


So, as someone said before, if the package only removes directories below
/usr/local, it should be ok if the script does not fail even if it cannot
write/delete there.

-- 
       ____________________________________________________
      /   Rediscovering Freedom, Using Debian GNU/Linux    \
     /                                                      \
     |   Jordi Mallach Pérez || jordi@pusa.informat.uv.es   |
     |    Oskuro in RL-MUD   || jordi@sindominio.net        |
     |               http://sindominio.net                  |
     \           telnet pusa.informat.uv.es 23              /
      \____________________________________________________/

Attachment: pgpDAPGhu1gUd.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: