On 31/10/2007, Christofer C. Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/30/07, Jan Claeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Op dinsdag 30-10-2007 om 10:46 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Vincenzo > > Ciancia: > > > I expected anything out of this thread, but people defending the idea > > > that keeping /usr/local/lib in the library path during system upgrades > > > is a good idea. I can accept to have problems *after* the upgrade, but > > > not to be left with an unusable system just because I had stuff in > > > /usr/local and that's my fault. > > > > Everyone can answer on this list with what is their personal opinion, so > > why are you surprised to to hear any particular opinion? :) > > From the FHS document: > > "The /usr/local hierarchy is for use by the system administrator when > installing software locally. It needs to be safe from being > overwritten when the system software is updated. It may be used for > programs and data that are shareable amongst a group of hosts, but not > found in /usr."[1] > > If you rename it, move it, or otherwise get rid of it, you're > "overwriting" the contents of /usr/local. You are "removing" it from > integration with the system. The onus is on the system administrator > to test their software to ensure that it works with a new operating > system release. If the system administrator doesn't do that, it's not > the fault of the operating system that the software doesn't work. If > it's unknown if the software will work or the system administrator > wants to preserve /usr/local while not having it visible during the > upgrade, then they need to take care of that themselves before > performing the upgrade. > > Are you suggesting the installer present a message saying something > like, "The contents of /usr/local may or may not be compatible with > this release. Would you like to rename /usr/local to /usr/local.save > now and verify compatibility later? [Yes] [No]"? While I don't have an > issue with that, will doing so break compatibility with the FHS?
That will not work if /usr/local is a mount point. What's wrong with just having all the system scripts ignore the contents of /usr/local or at the very least, put it last in the search path? F > [1] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#PURPOSE23 > > -- > Chris > > "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, right > or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally > treasonable to the American public," said President Theodore > Roosevelt. > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
