On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 03:54:03PM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Duncan Findlay wrote:
>
> > Configuration files should ALWAYS be under /etc/. Failure to do so is a
> > violation of the FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard).
>
> I'd love to agree with you, but what's /usr/local/etc for, then? What
> about e.g. Apache with /usr/local/conf/?
Eep. I like Debian. I never have to be subjected to the horrors of having
configuration files anywhere a bit of software pleases.
> Configuration files for standard system software should always be under
> /etc/. The question is whether it should be possible to install SA as
> something other than "standard system software."
Define 'standard system software.'
> > What's wrong with
> > my $LOCAL_RULES_DIR = '$(PREFIX)/../etc/mail/spamassassin';
>
> Many Perl installations have $Config{prefix} eq '/usr/local'. The above
> would put local rules in /usr/etc/mail/spamassassin, which (from the
> standpoint of someone trying to isolate SA installation into /usr/local)
> is no better than forcing /etc/.
Hmmm... I didn't think about that.
>
> And for a non-root user installing with "make PREFIX=$HOME", the chances
> of $HOME/../etc being writable are no better.
Can't someone use
make PREFIX=$HOME LOCAL_RULES_DEF=$HOME/wherever/I/want ?
I haven't checked... but I don't see why that wouldn't work.
--
Duncan
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
