David Bruce wrote: > I am the fledgling upstream maintainer of Bill Kendrick's game "Tux, Of Math > Command" aka Tuxmath. I have been working on making the program more > configurable, and it now reads and writes config files. The generic > (non-Debianized) "make install" target puts the program under /usr/local. > From my reading of the FHS, /usr/local should have its own etc for > configuration of locally-installed software. My /usr/local (Sid) has all of > the other subdirectories listed in the FHS, but no /usr/local/etc. > > 1. Would it be impolite for the makefile for my program to simply go ahead > and create /usr/local/etc?
IMO you should go ahead. Ideally of course your ./configure script or Makefile should respect the local admin's choice of sysconfdir (to be set to /etc or wherever), e.g. via ./configure --sysconfdir=<whatever> > 2. Shouldn't Debian systems already have this directory to be FHS-compliant? http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/fhs/fhs-2.3.html#USRLOCALLOCALHIERARCHY indicates that you are correct. A base install of Sid (judging from my pbuilder tarball) includes all of the items that the FHS requires in /usr/local except for /usr/local/etc. I suggest you file a severity "serious" bug against the base-files package, since it is responsible for creating the directories under /usr/local in its postinst. The serious severity is justified IMO since the existence of /usr/local/etc is a "must" directive of the FHS. (Any arguments?) best regards, -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/ Princeton University GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
