In a message dated: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 15:03:26 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Another, similar debate is whether /usr/local should be for site-local or
>machine-local files. We've had that here before, too.
I've actually flip-flopped my opinion of this one :) I used to
advocate that /usr/local should mean "local to a site" not a machine.
My opinion now is that /usr/local should be defined to mean whatever
the site's sysadmin thinks it should be :)
That way, if the site admin believes it should be for "site specific"
stuff, (s)he can make that call. If (s)he believes it's for machine
specific stuff, then so be it :)
> About the only "standard" I can be sure of here is that when there is no
>standard, long debates about semantics usually ensue. :)
Well, Duh! ;)
--
Seeya,
Paul
--
It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.
Have you appreciated your SysAdmin today?
http://www.sysadminday.com/
If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!
*****************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body.
*****************************************************************
