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

Re: /usr/local again

Brian May <bam@debian.org> writes:
> >>>>> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
>     Santiago> It is supposed to create those directories if it can.
>     Santiago> It is supposed not to fail if for whatever reason it
>     Santiago> can't (like it happened in your case).
> Is it possible to force packages *not* to create directories under
> /usr/local? Having packages create directories under /usr/local really
> screws up the operations on programs like stow, as the package may not
> realize it is putting the directory in the wrong spot (as far as the
> system administrator is concerned). I can give examples on request.

As far as I'm concerned, most braindead thing about dpkg and new
directiories in /usr/local is that it removes /usr/local
_if_it_is_fucking_symlink_ and then happly creates new local with some
empty directories within.

> 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).

No shit.

> -- 
> Brian May <bam@debian.org>


    Vampireware; n, a project capable of sucking the lifeblood out
                 of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it
                 which never actually sees the light of day, but
                 nonetheless refuses to die.
	--tlode@nyx.net on rec.humor.funny

Reply to: