Re: .debs using /usr/local/
*- On 2 May, John Hasler wrote about Re: .debs using /usr/local/ Michael Stenner writes: I though that, as a general policy, .debs didn't put anything in the /usr/local/ tree. I believe I recall reading that it is ok for packages to create empty directories under /usr/local. From the policy manual 3.1.2. Site-specific programs - As mandated by the FSSTND no package should place any files in `/usr/local', either by putting them in the filesystem archive to be unpacked by `dpkg' or by manipulating them in their maintainer scripts. However, the package should create empty directories below `/usr/local' so that the system administrator knows where to place site-specific files. These directories should be removed on package removal if they are empty. [] -- Brian - Mechanical Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED] Purdue University http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~servis -
.debs using /usr/local/
I though that, as a general policy, .debs didn't put anything in the /usr/local/ tree. However, I'm pretty (i.e. 99%) sure that in my slink r0 install, a few things were put in there - some python, tex, and emacs things, actually. Anyone know anything about this? Am I just nuts? -Michael Michael Stenner Office Phone: 919-660-2513 Duke University, Dept. of Physics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Box 90305, Durham N.C. 27708-0305
Re: .debs using /usr/local/
Michael Stenner writes: I though that, as a general policy, .debs didn't put anything in the /usr/local/ tree. I believe I recall reading that it is ok for packages to create empty directories under /usr/local. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
