On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 10:14:08AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > > > Come on! The FHS regulates what normal software can/should do, > > > partially so that package managers can work reliably. dpkg is the > > > package manager, thus it is exempt from the FHS. > In fact, I should have been even clearer. The FHS applies to the > filesystem structure are run-time, not at installation time. It > guides the installation, but only such that when the installation > phase is complete, the system can switch to run-time and be > FHS-compliant from the start onwards.
That's not quite true -- dpkg can't stick stuff in /debian-rocks/bin and claim to be FHS compliant. The key point is the distinction between who is controlling the file, and what it's for: the vendor (us) puts stuff in /usr, the admin puts software in /usr/local, and programs put their data in /var, ~, or /srv, depending on what sort of data it is (internal, personal work, or shared work). Having apt-spy dpkg-divert the file in /usr on install, and replace it with a symlink to a file in /var/lib, and then update the file in /var/lib when invoked seems the obviously correct way to deal with this, no? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``[S]exual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged.'' -- US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (http://tinyurl.com/3kwod)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
