Re: /usr/local again
On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Steve Robbins wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 08:08:40PM +0000, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > > Why not treat these directories the same way we treat configuration files.
> > > That is, the directories remain, under a normal Remove, but are "properly"
> > > removed if a Purge is requested. This leaves the control in the hands of
> > > the admin, where it belongs.
> I don't understand how this improves on the current handling of /usr/local
> directories. In fact, it sounds worse: if I'm offended by a package
> creating empty directories to begin with, I'd be even more annoyed if
> they stick around after a "normal Remove"! :-)
> Let's go back and look at the more fundamental question. Why do Debian
> packages create empty directories in /usr/local? Answer: the Policy
> allows them to.
And the reason Policy allows this is that the FHS allows this. This whole
discussion started from the _deletion_ of a directory in /usr/local, not
the creation of one. (and deletions in /usr/local are not allowed under
I was simply trying to point out that if we _are_ going to allow such
deletions, we should handle them the same way we do configuration files,
only removing them on a Purge, and not on a Remove. This leaves the
control over their removal in the hands of the system admin, where it
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-