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: > > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 01:05:10PM +1100, hce wrote: > > > On 10/31/07, Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > How are you installing mutt? Are you compiling mutt from source or > > > > trying to install the Debian binary package? > > > I am compiling mutt from the source, so I can install it in my local > > > directory, rather goes to /usr. > > > > 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? A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature