On 08/30/2010 04:02 PM, Brian Ryans wrote:
I meant /usr/share, I didn't type it wrong. I do however find your comprehension of some parts of the spec interesting. I'm not saying I'm absolutely right, but shouldn't assume every statement is a clever implication of something else. In other words, it only implies that the system will overwrite it if it needs to, and local is a local issue and the system should not automatically overwrite on an upgrade. local is given the same luxury as /etc, unless of course it's the ever so intriguing /etc/alternates which I have yet to figure out what use it serves even having been on debian since 3 but I can't remember that far back not on Debian at least, since it really has evolved a lot over the years. Personally I would rather put them in any share be it /usr/share or /usr/local/share whatever the system administrators preference over /srv because /srv is for services.Quoting Jordon Bedwell on 2010-08-30 07:10:33, in Message-Id <[🔎] 4C7B9FB9.6080904@envygeeks.com>I'm wondering if you couldn't put them under /usr/share since it is static./usr/local/share ya mean? /usr/share, in my reading of FHS, seems to be mainly used for distributions to place their data. As I read FHS, I can see logic for stuff like what you want to store placed in either /usr/local/share or /srv. Quoting FHS, though: Local placement of local files is a local issue, so FHS does not attempt to usurp system administrators.