On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Steve Gaarder <gaar...@math.cornell.edu> wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Nov 2015, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > >> The /usr/local/ directories are part of the File System Hierarchy, at >> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRLOCALLOCALHIERARCHY >> >> So, yes, it looks like upstream is following the File System >> Hierarchy. To play nicely with it, you should ideally, replace the >> subdirectories in /usr/local/ with individual symlinks. >> > They *are* symlinks, but symlinks to a read-only area in AFS space. > > Looking at the filesystem RPM, it assumes that it may be the first thing > being installed in a new system, and (re)creates the basic file system > structure. It seems ok with the symlink, but blows up when it can't chmod > it.
Earlier, you said: On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Steve Gaarder <gaar...@math.cornell.edu> wrote: > > I always thought that /usr/local was defined to be an area left alone by the > operating system. For many years, we have made it a symlink to a read-only > directory in AFS space. This has worked fine - until now. When I tried to A symlink form /usr/local to a read-only AFS space is *not* the same thing as symlinks for /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/etc, /usr/local/share, /usr/local/lib, etc. Be clear that replacing /usr/local with a symlink in the form you describe is *not* compliant with the FSH. Not that it's not useful in your environment, but just so you appreciate that you may have issues with core packages such as the "filesystem" package.
