On Thursday, 12 January 2012 11:55:07 Colin Guthrie wrote: > 'Twas brillig, and Buchan Milne at 12/01/12 09:12 did gyre and gimble: > > I don't see why we shouldn't ship dirs in /usr/local ... > > I don't really see the point in shipping the dirs personally. > > Any separate extension that is packaged should not go into /usr/local > anyway,
No one ever said they would, you snipped the part of my mail saying that 'locally installed' customisations, IOW, ones not managed by the package manager etc., go there. > so these folders are purely for users doing this manually. Yes. And that's why we provide /usr/local/share/applications? /me wonders if 'filesystem' would make it through the BS. > I would expect that the "make install" stage of any extension > installation would automatically create those folders anyway, so I > really don't see the benefit of adding these empty folders into a > package. So, why would 'make isntall' of rt, which has been configured to itself live in a system location, explicitly create these directories? > The gain in doing so seems minimal to the point of useless. I can remove the dirs in the package, but also, what is the benefit? On a system dedicated to running a request tracking system, should we explicitly make it more difficult to run said system that it would be if installed from source? > Of course if extensions do not have installer scripts then the user will > have to create those folders themselves, but if they are following a > manual recipe anyway, what's an extra mkdir during that process going to > cost them? Very little IMO. > > Disclaimer: I have no experience of rt itself, so I could be missing > something contextual here. Well, I haven't myself used extensions that live here, because I have to be careful not to deliver something one of our vendors is contracted to deliver. I'll test one on my laptop ... Regards, Buchan