Re: /usr/local again
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 01:33:57PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > That would be inconsistent. If you install a package and later decide that
> > you don't need it removing the package should get rid of any directories
> > it created in /usr/local IF they are empty.
> how would that be inconsistent? no package should ever create those
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood your last mail (namely the directory stub thing:
you mentioned only toplevel dirs in /usr/local).
> local administrators, which are different that system developers (us), have
Note that I am local administrator on quite some Debian boxes as well. And
I would like the feature of having /usr/local/foo created to stay.
> the right to create/delete/rot13 anything under /usr/local. we have
rot13 - hey, that would be cool :)
> absolutely no authority in that heirarchy except at initial installation
> time, before the root password even gets set for the first time.
> 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?
Yep - that is what I gathered from your first mail. While you seem to like
that better I want to have /usr/local populated. I don't want to search
the docs just for a directory name. find /usr/local -name site-lisp works
better than finding that information in the docs.
Torsten Landschoff Bluehorn@IRC <email@example.com>
Debian Developer and Quality Assurance Committee Member