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

Re: GLIBC_2.4

On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:31:45PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:52:36PM -0800, Ken Irving wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 10:18:45PM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > > If all you want to do is put the mutt stuff in /usr/local, why not just
> > > unpack the deb and place it manually?  (or are search paths for libs
> > > coded in the binary, I don't know)?
> > 
> > This (or similar) kind of thing has been discussed before on the list,
> > and ISTR that the debian packaging is pretty well hard-coded to non-local
> > (i.e., the standard) target directories.  It'd be nice to be able to
> > apt{whatever} install to local trees, but there's just no support in
> > the underlying system for this.  I can't recall just why I ever wanted
> > this feature, but would be interested if unpacking the deb and manually
> > placing was a viable approach.
> In a similar vein, I've wondered about regular users installing
> packages when they aren't (or can't get) root. ITSM it might be nice
> to be able to install in $HOME/blah as a fallback when installing as
> non-root. BUt then there are potentially big security holes,
> duplication of binaries, etc associated with that. But still, on
> occaision, I see no problem with users apt-getting some mail client or
> other user oriented package into their local tree. They can already
> build from source to do this, so why not a .deb? 

My impression is that there's no particular reasons that it can't be done,
but it just hasn't been done.  There are probably wish list requests to
this effect filed away somewhere on this, or so I dimly recall.  My guess
is that what it needs is a suitably motivated person to actually make
it happen.

Ken Irving, fnkci+debianuser@uaf.edu

Reply to: