use of /usr/local by packages (again)

[Michael J. Lynch]

Michael R Head wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 11:46 -0500, Michael J. Lynch wrote:
> 
>>Yes...but the directory name implies it to be, in fact, a *local*
>>directory and NOT either shared or a *remote* mount.  
> 
> 
> Is that really true? I don't think so. 
> 
> '/usr/local' is for "local"ly installed packages. The FHS standard says
> nothing about whether it can be a remote mount.
> 
> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRLOCALLOCALHIERARCHY
> 
> 
>>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
>>
>>

Sorry...got my OS's mixed up (I use linux, Solaris, and others on
a daily basis).  You are correct about this in reference to linux.

-- 
Michael J. Lynch

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