use of /usr/local by packages (again)

[Michael J. Lynch]

Alvin Thompson wrote:
> no comments on this from anybody who knows about/is in charge of this 
> stuff? should i submit a bug?
> 
> -alvin
> 
> 
> Alvin Thompson wrote:
> 
>> thanks to all for the informative responses. you are right; the stuff 
>> under /user/local mostly seems to be placeholder directories.
>>
>> while i agree that programs can and should look under 
>> /usr/local/whatever to see if there is any firmware/extensions/other 
>> stuff that the user added, i'm not so sure i like the idea of the 
>> distro adding even placeholder directories--it should be up to the 
>> admin to explicitly add them if needed. one person pointed out that 
>> the placeholder directory is to tell the user that they can add stuff 
>> there. i would argue that that's what documentation is for.
>>
>> i guess if it's the policy that placeholder directories are ok, i'll 
>> have to live with it, but i don't think it's a good idea. if i (and i 
>> imagine other admins) have /usr/local on it's own partition, i usually 
>> mount it read-only. /usr/local is for _my_ stuff; i don't expect 
>> /usr/local to be written to just because i add a package from the 
>> distribution. now i'll have to make sure that /usr/local is writable 
>> whenever i install a package, which can be difficult in some cases 
>> (see below).
>>
>> but the biggest problem isn't the placeholders, it's that some 
>> programs actually store stuff there on their own under /user/local and 
>> don't work properly if the stuff is not there. to illustrate why this 
>> is a problem, consider my use case, which i'm sure applies to many 
>> admins: i have an NFS shared /user/local on my network. when i install 
>> a computer on the network, i normally configure it so that it mounts 
>> the shared directory as /usr/local. this way all of the 
>> scripts/programs/stuff specific to my network is in one place, and i 
>> can change it in one place. but now i can't do that because it will 
>> break programs in this distro.
>>
>> my (unsolicited) two cents,
>> alvin
>>
> 
> 

Yes...but the directory name implies it to be, in fact, a *local*
directory and NOT either shared or a *remote* mount.  I understand
what and why you are doing what you are doing, but using the
directory in that way is a violation of it's defined and intended
use.

-- 
Michael J. Lynch

What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about -- author unknown