Proposed addition to 3.1.2:
> Because '/usr/local' and its contents are for exclusive use of the
> local administrator, a package must not rely on the presence or
> absence of files or directories in '/usr/local' for normal
> operation, although files present in there may modify or enhance
> the behavior of the package.
I second the idea, but:
I'm not sure how this fits in cleanly with the existing wording. Can
I suggest the following instead:
<p>
If you do create a directory in <tt>/usr/local</tt> for
local additions to a package, you must ensure that
settings in <tt>/usr/local</tt> take precedence over the
equivalents in <tt>/usr</tt>.</p>
+
+ <p>
+ However, because '/usr/local' and its contents are for
+ exclusive use of the local administrator, a package must
+ not rely on the presence or absence of files of
+ directories in '/usr/local' for normal operation.</p>
<p>
The <tt>/usr/local</tt> directory itself and all the subdirectories
created by the package should have permissions 2775 (group-writable
and set-group-id) and be owned by <tt>root.staff</tt>.</p>
</sect1>
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg
