W. Borgert wrote: > Thanks, I read it but I still don't understand it. It is clear > for me that Debian does not place any files under /usr/local/. > My proposal was not to change this! If we say, only the sysadmin > is allowed to put files under /usr/local/, do we also say she > isn't allowed to use advanced tools to place files there? But > if we allow the sysadmin to put files under /usr/local/ using > advanced tools, why shouldn't it be dpkg. Note: As I wrote in > my other mail, I think the /var/lib/dpkg database should not be > involved, if files under non-standard directories are placed!
Somewhere between the lines it seems, that the distribution will not make or change tools to work with /usr/local. Well, actually, I built packages for /usr/local myself (limited general use, restricting licenses a.s.o.). I tweaked the installation by debhelper to accept my paths. It was not too difficult, but could have been better. So I filed wishlist bug reports against debhelper and lintian, to work with /usr/local too. The points raised in the discussion were essentially the same as the ones you read. Hence, I'm still using the procedure for some programs :-), but there will be no support from the distribution. > Of course, not all packages can be placed under non-standard > directories, but most packages wouldn't raise this problem. > In fact, most programs I know, use the ./configure --prefix > option only for the install target in the Makefile, in most > cases nothing is hard-coded into the binary! Well, a lot of programs will probably work. However, you may get strange unexplainable bugs, too. Regards, Ulf
