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 should not be used in packages. Thought that was already > > > policy? > > > > Right. No package may install stuff in /usr/local nor in /opt. Period. > > > > I guess the only exceptions are perl and emacs where the package > > should create the directory structure so people won't have to > > guess them. > > 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.
No, This Is Daft. If the license is _THAT_ restrictive that you can't even install it into /usr, we should talk to Troll Tech or drop it. If it can't be configured for /usr instead of /usr/local (non-modified-binary-syndrome), we have 3 options:- 1. qt-src package (could this go into main?) 2. Install into /usr; symlink into /usr/local 3. Tell dpkg which directories it is _NOT_ to remove (via some configfile?) -- Tom Lees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.lpsg.demon.co.uk/ PGP Key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.lpsg.demon.co.uk/pgpkeys.asc.
