FSSTND 1.2 defines the /usr/share/ directory, but not anything like
/usr/local/share/. Does anybody knows whether it's normal ? IMHO,
just as stuff in /usr can install files in /usr/lib/ and /usr/share/,
stuff in /usr/local/ should be allowed to install files both in
/usr/local/lib/ (as is authorized by the FSSTND), and in
/usr/local/share/.
That's one point. The other one is about locally-maintained files of
the same sort of those that go under /usr/share/. Should they go in
/usr/share/ too, or would it be allowed to place them in a directory
that is known to contain local stuff, ie. /usr/local/. In the latter
case, I think the proper place to put them would be /usr/local/share/
as well.
I think section 3.1.2 of the policy manual would be in favor of the
latter.
What to others think ?
--
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer,
alt-email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | support Debian GNU/Linux:
| more powerful, more stable !
http://www.a2points.com/homepage/3475232 |
-----------------------------------------
A computer engineer's looking for a job !
-----------------------------------------
