Hi, thanks for looking into this. I didnt copy the libreoffice binary to /usr/local/bin, but I just went through my bash history and it seems I symlinked /usr/bin to /usr/local/bin a while ago because another program refused to run otherwise (unfortunately this package is not available from Debian repos and was installed from source). I didn't know this was discouraged or problematic. No other package fails to work as it currently stands. Curiously though, when I do try to unlink /usr/local/bin, I can no longer use even simple commands like ls or cd.
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, August 18th, 2021 at 10:34 AM, Rene Engelhard <r...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi, > > last note. > > Am 18.08.21 um 07:56 schrieb Rene Engelhard: > > > > "/usr/local/bin/libreoffice: 52: cd: can't cd to > > > ../lib/libreoffice/program" > > > > > > And obviously nothing in this package contains any > > > > /usr/local/bin/libreoffice > > In fact, anything in /usr/local is a policy violation per se. > > 9.1.2. Site-specific programs > > As mandated by the FHS, packages must not place any files in /usr/local, > > either by putting them in the file system archive to be unpacked by dpkg > > or by manipulating them in their maintainer scripts. > > And lintian also errors out for it (no matches in the arhive, as expected): > > https://lintian.debian.org/tags/file-in-usr-local > > At the /usr/local you would have already seen that this is notihing > > which has to do with the package itself (except when you copied > > /usr/bin/libreoffice to /usr/local/bin/libreoffice) so no reason to > > report a bug at all - more a reason to fix your admin error. > > > Did you put one there yourself once? You are are not supposed to copy > > > > stuff around... > > This still holds. > > Regards, > > Rene
