On Wednesday 22 March 2006 05:25, Francois Gouget wrote: > I will note that it does have a provision for the case where /usr/share > is not writable and suggests to write to /usr/local/share in that case. > But I cannot see when one would be able to the latter without being able > to write to the former since both are usually owned by root.
As per by FHS: """The /usr/local hierarchy is for use by the system administrator when installing software locally. It needs to be safe from being overwritten when the system software is updated.""" """"/usr is the second major section of the filesystem. /usr is shareable, read-only data."""" """[...] /usr can now be mounted read-only"""" In short, /usr/local could be writeable while /usr could easily be read-only. I think the issue is not whether both /usr/local and /usr are writeable on most people's desktops, but that /usr/local and /usr serve different purposes as per the FHS. This wording hints that third-party software should not be put in /usr, and instead be put in /opt or /usr/local (so it will not be overwritten, etc.). This means the XDG specs should fully support /usr/local as an installation prefix. All quotes are from http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html. -- Karl Pietrzak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpfWufLjy50Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
