Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Name clash in prospective package "): > Ian Jackson: > > The point of not putting things in /usr/local isn't, as I see it, so > > Well, I'm not in full agreement, but it's not important enough.
Fair enough. > > I propose the following resolution: > I can live with the what you propose. Good. I've added the section below. Ian. <sect1><tt>/usr/local</> - for the use of the system administrator <p> As mandated by the FSSTND no package should place any files in <tt>/usr/local</>, either by putting them in the filesystem archive to be unpacked by <prgn/dpkg/ or by manipulating them in their maintainer scripts. <p> Every package that searches a number of directories or files for something (for example, looking for shared libraries in <tt>/lib</> or <tt>/usr/lib</>) should search an appropriate directory in <tt>/usr/local</> too. <p> In order that the system administrator may know where to place additional files a package should create an empty directory in the appropriate place in <tt>/usr/local</> by supplying it in the filesystem archive for unpacking by <prgn/dpkg/. The <tt>/usr/local</> directory itself and all the subdirectories created by the package should have permissions 2775 (group-writeable and set-group-id) and be owned by <tt/root.staff/. <p> In the future it will be possible to tell <prgn/dpkg/ not to unpack files matching certain patterns, so that system administrators who do not wish these directories in <tt>/usr/local</> do not need to have them.