On 08/30/2010 04:02 PM, Brian Ryans wrote:
Quoting Jordon Bedwell on 2010-08-30 07:10:33, in Message-Id
<[email protected]>
I'm wondering if you couldn't put them under /usr/share since it is
static.
/usr/local/share ya mean? /usr/share, in my reading of FHS, seems to be
mainly used for distributions to place their data.
As I read FHS, I can see logic for stuff like what you want to store
placed in either /usr/local/share or /srv.
Quoting FHS, though:
Local placement of local files is a local issue, so FHS
does not attempt to usurp system administrators.
I meant /usr/share, I didn't type it wrong. I do however find your
comprehension of some parts of the spec interesting. I'm not saying I'm
absolutely right, but shouldn't assume every statement is a clever
implication of something else. In other words, it only implies that the
system will overwrite it if it needs to, and local is a local issue and
the system should not automatically overwrite on an upgrade. local is
given the same luxury as /etc, unless of course it's the ever so
intriguing /etc/alternates which I have yet to figure out what use it
serves even having been on debian since 3 but I can't remember that far
back not on Debian at least, since it really has evolved a lot over the
years. Personally I would rather put them in any share be it /usr/share
or /usr/local/share whatever the system administrators preference over
/srv because /srv is for services.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
