https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89963
--- Comment #3 from sergio.calleg...@gmail.com --- Investigated the matter a bit more. The general wisdom that I collected is that is that /usr/local/bin is for user programs not managed by the distribution package manager such as locally compiled packages that must be safe from modifications, overwriting and deletion when the package manager is invoked. If this is the expectation, the principle of least surprise strongly suggests not to break it. This regardless of whether the program is an official part of the distribution or not. And in fact, non-distribution packages, such as all packages in ubuntu ppas and software provided by third party vendors as packages tend not to pollute /usr/local. Also because when you accept the idea that it is OK for a packaged software to pullute it, it gets unclear where to stop. E.g.: if it is OK for a packaged software to put a link in /usr/local/bin, would it be OK also to put 100? and to put all its libs in /usr/local/lib? Furthermore, another reason for not having packages that install across /usr and /usr/local is that (though this is not extremely frequent) setups exists where the /usr and /opt trees are shared among multiple hosts, while the /usr/local tree is precisely local and as such not shared. On these setups, anything that installs across the shared and not-shared part ends up broken. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________ Libreoffice-bugs mailing list Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
