Re: /usr/local again
On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Eric Weigel wrote:
> Well, I can see your point: /usr/local is stricly for local use.
> But, I think the Debian extension is a good one.
I don't understand what you mean by "extension". Either /usr/local is
strictly for local use, or it is not. Either I can trust that Debian will
never touch anything in /usr/local, or I cannot.
I believe it should be strictly for local use. So do, it seems, the
framers of the FHS.
If Debian is going to adopt a different point of view, well, then so be
it. But the policy document language needs to be cleaned up in that case.
And Debian cannot claim to be FHS compliant.
> If a package creates a directory under /usr/local, so long as that does
> not overwrite something else that was there, and so long as it puts no
> files there, I think thats ok.
> On removal, that package should remove the directory, if and only if,
> it is empty, and is not a link.
> Yes, I know this is not exactly FHS, but it's convenient for the admin
> (thats me).
It is a matter of taste.
This admin doesn't it convenient.