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

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.  


Reply to: