On 5 Jul 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
> what needs a review are the outstanding inconsistencies between dpkg
> and the policy guide. (The guide should of course win :-) I
> understand Klee has put some effort into this though probably hasn't
> gotten around to this particular one; the simple approach is for the
> installer to tell dpkg "/usr/local is off-limits" and dpkg can then
> just drop anything that would go there. [This feature should be
> somewhat general; it could be used to some extent to terminate the
> info vs. html vs. stone tablets (:-) thread...]
>
I don't see any need to post that restriction on dpkg. dpkg is just a
package management tool. It should be able to install files to wherever
you tell it to.
I build my own versions of xemacs, mc, asclock, xbuffy debian packages
with destination in "/usr/local", and use dpkg to install, remove, upgrade
them. I found dpkg not only a powerful tool to manage the officail debian
packages, but also a very useful tool to manage my own packages in
/usr/local. It would be a SAD thing if some features of dpkg were
removed.
If some official debian packages try to install files in /usr/local
(causing the so-called inconsistencies between dpkg and the policy guide),
You can simply file bug reports against them. I don't think that's a big
problem.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
