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
After purging emacs today, the damn thing deleted my /usr/local symlink since
it was the last package to have /usr/local in it. Obviously this is not very
clever.
So we should either remove /usr/local from all packages, or tell dpkg to not
remove /usr/local. I personally favour the former
Joseph Carter wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 1998 at 12:16:52PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
After purging emacs today, the damn thing deleted my /usr/local symlink
since
it was the last package to have /usr/local in it. Obviously this is not
very
clever.
So we should either remove
On Tue, Sep 29, 1998 at 12:23:37PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
So we should either remove /usr/local from all packages, or tell dpkg to
not
remove /usr/local. I personally favour the former solution.
/usr/local should not be used in packages. Thought that was already policy?
On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Herbert Xu wrote:
After purging emacs today, the damn thing deleted my /usr/local symlink since
it was the last package to have /usr/local in it. Obviously this is not very
clever.
Would have this happened if base-files contained /usr/local as an empty
directory?
Since
On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 1998 at 01:28:27PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Herbert Xu wrote:
After purging emacs today, the damn thing deleted my /usr/local symlink
since
it was the last package to have /usr/local in it. Obviously
*sigh* I meant this to go to policy, but I wasn't careful with my
keypresses in gnus...
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joseph Carter wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 1998 at 12:16:52PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
After purging emacs today, the damn thing deleted my /usr/local symlink
On Tue, Sep 29, 1998 at 04:08:56AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 1998 at 12:23:37PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
So we should either remove /usr/local from all packages, or tell dpkg
to not
remove /usr/local. I personally favour the former solution.
/usr/local
On Tue, Sep 29, 1998 at 12:34:09PM -0400, Daniel Martin wrote:
I'm very glad TeX set up its /usr/local directory structure; that I
_really_ would not want to guess at. In fact, anything else that
requires directories in /usr/local should set up the structure; the
only problem I see is that
9 matches
Mail list logo
