sean finney writes ("Re: Atlas proposal [and 1 more messages]"): > as an admin i'd be very annoyed by that behavior, because there's no way > for me to know what package the file came from then, or whether it was my > own accidental actions that led to it (i.e. a make install gone wrong > somewhere, etc), and no way to do checksum verifications.
There must be many other things that make you very annoyed, then, because there are loads of files in /usr which are created by package maintainer scripts. If this kind of thing bothers you then you should be pursuing those file-registration schemes so that you can look up the origins (and if you like, checksums) of files more easily. If there were a standard file registration scheme for files which were in the .deb's filesystem archive, naturally the proposed atlas installer would use it. > to me it seems that somewhere under /var/lib or /var/cache would be > more appropriate... and just to throw something out there, there is an > /etc/ld.so.conf.d directory, so the package could drop a file in there > pointing at wherever the libraries were placed. Yuck. This is complicated and unreliable. The difference between /var and /usr is that /usr is not modified _except at package installation/upgradwe time_, not that /usr isn't modified at all, obviously. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/19574.18272.471419.112...@chiark.greenend.org.uk