Core-Dev Application: Till Kamppeter

[Stefan Potyra]

Hi,

On Wednesday 02 April 2008 15:44:18 Soren Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 03:13:25PM +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> >>> What is wrong for Brother to install to /usr/local?
> >>
> >> General policy for packages coming with a distribution is to install
> >> into /usr. Brother would be perfectly correct installing into /opt
> >> (third-party package) for RPM and DEB packages and into /usr/local
> >> for a tarball (local admin installation).
> >
> > Excellent, great (@Soren, I gues you misread my exact question ;). In
> > case you didn't: The same rationale holds true for autotools to
> > default PREFIX to /usr/local).
>
> I apparantly still don't understand. I find you question to be
> completely analogous to "Why did you you put the control file in
> debian/?".. Because that's where it belongs? Till was creating an Ubuntu
> package, and as such should adhere to the policy.

No, you really misread the question: I was asking about the packages provided 
*by* Brother themselves.

>
> Maybe it'll be easier for me to understand if you can answer the
> converse: "In what situation would it make sense to put them into
> /usr/local instead?"

Well, /usr/local is the space reserved for local installations, which mustn't 
clash with system installations. Hence e.g. as an admin I could put a locally 
compiled software in there (since this will never clash with whatever a 
distro provides me). Or I could wish to install 3rd-party .debs, e.g. 
directly from Brother. 
Granted, for 3rd-party .debs the /usr/local hierarchy is debatable at least, 
as dpkg already comes with its own mechanism to handle file system clashes.

[..]
>
> > Finally, the reasoning around the "upload known broken packages"
> > dialogue makes me actually believe, that you shouldn't have upload
> > rights for uni-/multiverse even, let alone main.
>
> Out of pure curiosity: Till says pitti approved this. Should we consider
> removing pitti's upload rights, too?

Pitti didn't upload it, did he? And yes, if he did knowingly upload very 
broken things, I would actually consider it, *especially* since he's part of 
ubuntu-release. However I haven't seen such an upload from him yet, and very 
much doubt that one would ever happen.

Cheers,
     Stefan.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/attachments/20080402/44cb581a/attachment.pgp