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

Re: /usr/local again

> On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 01:33:57PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > we do have the authority to create packages that will optionally link to
> > libraries there, use fonts from there, etc. read only however. do you see
> > the distinction?
> I'm not even sure about that.  Shouldn't we be completely ignorant of 
> the local heiarchy? 

There's ignorance of the local hierarchy, and then there's outright 
hostility to the local hierarchy.

As an example, consider shared libaries and /etc/ld.so.conf.
"Ignorance" says that the default configuration file won't include 
/usr/local/lib, but the admin is free to add it herself.

"Hostility" (or "antagonism") says that the dynamic loader should 
explicitly check whether the directory path is under /usr/local - and 
refuse to load any libraries from those paths since those libraries 
could be corrupted.

I think most people would agree that ignorance is acceptable, but
hostility is not.  Hostility is also pointless, since the administrator
would simply copy these files from /usr/local into whereever the
other files are stored, and *that* would destroy one of the primary
benefits of package management!

Bear Giles

Reply to: