Re: /usr/local in some packages

Qt does this too, but that's because we're not allowed to move it from /usr/local. I really think all these little compromises on policy are a bad thing because they cause problems like /usr/local symlinks being deleted. This is Very Not Acceptable. second. i like to have no /usr/local at

FHS - transition

(See also my post to debian-devel about this. In particular, I'm opposed to /var/state and think we should ignore the FHS on this point.) One of the key changes that the FHS has compared to the FSSTND is the existence of /usr/share. I think this is perfectly appropriate, but it will take some

Re: FHS - transition

On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Ian Jackson wrote: (See also my post to debian-devel about this. In particular, I'm opposed to /var/state and think we should ignore the FHS on this point.) One of the key changes that the FHS has compared to the FSSTND is the existence of /usr/share. I think this is